Considering that the BSD network stack is pretty much THE reference, whatever you code has to stay compatible with it. So you're going to need to copy ALL the BSD constants, and ALL the BSD typedefs, and you had better make sure that you implement the exact same API. Otherwise, you won't have something that complies with the standard - and it won't work. So, tell us, how are you going to write something that complies with the standard without those constants, typedefs, and api? Magic? Time machine? Million Monkeys?
For every commercial vendor who uses BSD, you find two that use Linux, so your argument doesn't seem to hold water too well.
Actually, you just made my argument for me. All the people being sued, threatened, or agreeing to pay the Microsoft "Linux Tax" are running Linux. I don't hear tell of any Microsoft "BSD Tax".
A search for Microsoft Linux Tax finds the majority of mobile manufacturers paying Microsoft for a license to use Linux. A search for Microsoft BSD Tax or Microsoft Solaris Tax or Microsoft Plan9 Tax or Microsoft FreeDOS Tax? Nah.
We know that AT&T tried to take down BSD and failed. While most of the AT&T patents have expired, none of the copyrights have. BSD won the right to use those copyrighted materials in the Regents of California case. Think of it - if AT&T couldn't do it, the same principle applies as in that case - the code has been out there for subsequent versions for a LONG time, and to succeed in a lawsuit, they'd have to show not only that they were unaware of the existence of the BSD code, but that a reasonable practitioner exercising due diligence would be in the same boat. That's not the case with linux, which Microsoft was very careful to make noises about patent infringement quite quickly, so as to preserve their legal options.
In other words, the same patent that is being infringed in both is only suit-proof in BSD. Only the copyright protection, not the patent protection, is granted via the BSD license to products such as Linux.
It's a real rats nest, and that's why the manufacturers are settling. Even if they can show that the code in question is BSD-licensed code, only BSD-derived kernels would be covered.
As Apple chose to use Linux as operating system in Android.
Um, no they didn't.
Also, HURD is still a work of fiction, and Tizen is as dead as webOS. As for the GPL, it is as full of holes as swiss cheese, ever since the courts ruled (Game Genie) that to be a derivative work, the final result must be saved in a fixed format, not ram - so you can dynamically link proprietary code to GPL code, and even patch GPL code in memory, w/o releasing your source.
Why? Does your browser have a plugin to read the different filesystems on web servers when it gets a directory listing? It can be done without infringing patents - ask the SAMBA team. It's just a question of sending the right bits along the wire.
It's not about the license itself, but the underlying code. BSD == A T & T == lots of patents. The Regents of the UofC settled that they have the right to distribute BSD with those patents because AT & T did not contest it after knowing about it for years. That same "right" doesn't extend to Linux.
The copyright is invalid to the extent that it infringes a patent (or a trademark) - at that point, you do NOT have the right to copy it. Write a book, use a bunch of people's trademarks, and watch how fast you find out that you cannot distribute your book. It's the same with code and patents. Copyright only gives you the right to make copies to the extent that your work is original and non-infringing.
How much would Microsoft give to be able to attack Apple right at the core - OSX? Think of it of a minute - then ask yourself which alternate universe they would have to be in to have overlooked that.
If it works, and it conforms to the IETF norms (which it HAS to to work, then it has to include a lot of the same code. Otherwise, it wouldn't conform to the norm, and would be broken, right?:-)
Just because someone GPLs code does not mean that it isn't subject to a patent attack - unless it's the OWNER of the PATENT who GPLs it. Why do you think RedHat had to pay to settle a patent dispute?
This still requires that the desktop be able to read the filesystem on the SD card
Actually, it doesn't, any more than your web browser needs to read the file system on the web server. There's no reason that the directory structure can't be presented as a list of files without giving access to the underlying filesystem.
That they stuck with a system that was encumbered says "bad planning".
So, you have the source for the Vista and Win7 stack to back up your claims? Didn't think so. And why would they not continue to use parts of it, especially since they have to to maintain compatibility with older software, and it's not like they're not allowed to.
Wanna bet? If Microsoft could sue Apple over OSX using FreeBSD they would do it in the blink of an eye. They would LOVE to collect tolls from Apple on every iPad and iPhone.
Which was totally unnecessary. How many people can only transfer files by physically moving an SD card from one device to another? Now how many people can't even GET to the memory chip in the first place?
The proper way to implement this was to use a native (non-Windows) file system, and let people transfer their files using wifi or a $3 mini/micro usb cable.
There were plenty of mistakes made in the rush to implement a quick-and-dirty mobile OS. This was just one of them, and now everyone is paying the price for it.
Why would android devices need file system compatibility with non-android devices? If you want to transfer data, you don't open up the device and remove the memory chip - you do it over wifi or whatever networking floats your boat. Next you'll be demanding that we keep fat12 compatibility for transferring data using floppies.
This is the 21st century. Please get with the program.
Apple hired several of the FreeBSD devs, and lots of the code was, and continues to be, given back to the FreeBSD project. Also, in case you haven't noticed it, that Apple-sponsored code includes the rewrite to WebKit that all you Chrome users like so much. You might want to check out the other stuff here and here. Also, if you use CUPS to print anything, thank Apple - they bought the source code from the original developer. Use zeroconf for networking? Thank Apple for their open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's closed one, which wasn't adopted by the IETF).
There's plenty of code that's been "given back" into BSD - including by commercial companies. You might want to look at opensource.apple.com for a few hundred examples, many of which are also used in most linux distros.
You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.
For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents. Now, if you can show a single patent that Microsoft is exerting against LG, Samsung, etc., that they could also stick it to BSD, you're welcome to try.
You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another, and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.
You don't have to LEAVE the screwdriver in the lock - once you turn it past the point where the pin breaks and the car starts, you can remove it. From then on, you can start the car with a nail file, a popsicle stick, or if it's REALLY cold, a Tootsie Roll.
You failed to point out that Microsoft now likes the GPL because they can charge for their "patent protection" racket - something they can't do with the BSDs.
Ask LG, Samsung, HTC, Acer, Compal, etc., if they wish Android had been based on FreeBSD (same as OSX is) instead of Linux.
How is it a troll to point out that the GPL has caused a lot of problems that would be obviated by using BSD-licensed code (as one example, just look at the deal LG signed with Microsoft for "linux protection").
The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.
... which is why you used a dent puller (or a big screwdriver and a hammer) to just remove the key barrel and insert a screwdriver, and turn the switch on.
Or if you had the misfortune of driving certain Chryslers, the pin at the bottom of the barrel that turns the contact pad would snap off in normal use, and you could just remove the whole barrel by hand, no tools required (happened to me at a gas station - I filled up, went to turn the ignition on, and it spun around and around and around with no effect. Had to pull out the barrel and use a screwdriver to turn the contact pads to the right position).
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the BSD network stack is pretty much THE reference, whatever you code has to stay compatible with it. So you're going to need to copy ALL the BSD constants, and ALL the BSD typedefs, and you had better make sure that you implement the exact same API. Otherwise, you won't have something that complies with the standard - and it won't work. So, tell us, how are you going to write something that complies with the standard without those constants, typedefs, and api? Magic? Time machine? Million Monkeys?
Actually, you just made my argument for me. All the people being sued, threatened, or agreeing to pay the Microsoft "Linux Tax" are running Linux. I don't hear tell of any Microsoft "BSD Tax".
A search for Microsoft Linux Tax finds the majority of mobile manufacturers paying Microsoft for a license to use Linux. A search for Microsoft BSD Tax or Microsoft Solaris Tax or Microsoft Plan9 Tax or Microsoft FreeDOS Tax? Nah.
In other words, the same patent that is being infringed in both is only suit-proof in BSD. Only the copyright protection, not the patent protection, is granted via the BSD license to products such as Linux.
It's a real rats nest, and that's why the manufacturers are settling. Even if they can show that the code in question is BSD-licensed code, only BSD-derived kernels would be covered.
Um, no they didn't.
Also, HURD is still a work of fiction, and Tizen is as dead as webOS. As for the GPL, it is as full of holes as swiss cheese, ever since the courts ruled (Game Genie) that to be a derivative work, the final result must be saved in a fixed format, not ram - so you can dynamically link proprietary code to GPL code, and even patch GPL code in memory, w/o releasing your source.
If in the meantime a half million bad ideas get killed off by Krappy Koders badly executing them, how is that a "Bad Thing"?
Anything that hastens the day when we have real standards is a good thing.
Why? Does your browser have a plugin to read the different filesystems on web servers when it gets a directory listing? It can be done without infringing patents - ask the SAMBA team. It's just a question of sending the right bits along the wire.
It's not about the license itself, but the underlying code. BSD == A T & T == lots of patents. The Regents of the UofC settled that they have the right to distribute BSD with those patents because AT & T did not contest it after knowing about it for years. That same "right" doesn't extend to Linux.
The copyright is invalid to the extent that it infringes a patent (or a trademark) - at that point, you do NOT have the right to copy it. Write a book, use a bunch of people's trademarks, and watch how fast you find out that you cannot distribute your book. It's the same with code and patents. Copyright only gives you the right to make copies to the extent that your work is original and non-infringing.
How is it FUD that Microsoft has not, in all these years, been able to attack OSX? It's not like they're BFF.
How much would Microsoft give to be able to attack Apple right at the core - OSX? Think of it of a minute - then ask yourself which alternate universe they would have to be in to have overlooked that.
If it works, and it conforms to the IETF norms (which it HAS to to work, then it has to include a lot of the same code. Otherwise, it wouldn't conform to the norm, and would be broken, right? :-)
The GPL is not magic pixy dust.
Actually, it doesn't, any more than your web browser needs to read the file system on the web server. There's no reason that the directory structure can't be presented as a list of files without giving access to the underlying filesystem.
That they stuck with a system that was encumbered says "bad planning".
So, you have the source for the Vista and Win7 stack to back up your claims? Didn't think so. And why would they not continue to use parts of it, especially since they have to to maintain compatibility with older software, and it's not like they're not allowed to.
Wanna bet? If Microsoft could sue Apple over OSX using FreeBSD they would do it in the blink of an eye. They would LOVE to collect tolls from Apple on every iPad and iPhone.
The proper way to implement this was to use a native (non-Windows) file system, and let people transfer their files using wifi or a $3 mini/micro usb cable.
There were plenty of mistakes made in the rush to implement a quick-and-dirty mobile OS. This was just one of them, and now everyone is paying the price for it.
This is the 21st century. Please get with the program.
Apple hired several of the FreeBSD devs, and lots of the code was, and continues to be, given back to the FreeBSD project. Also, in case you haven't noticed it, that Apple-sponsored code includes the rewrite to WebKit that all you Chrome users like so much. You might want to check out the other stuff here and here. Also, if you use CUPS to print anything, thank Apple - they bought the source code from the original developer. Use zeroconf for networking? Thank Apple for their open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's closed one, which wasn't adopted by the IETF).
It's still based off of BSD code. "Derivative works" and all that. You can't make a compatible stack w/o using it.
You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.
You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another, and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.
You don't have to LEAVE the screwdriver in the lock - once you turn it past the point where the pin breaks and the car starts, you can remove it. From then on, you can start the car with a nail file, a popsicle stick, or if it's REALLY cold, a Tootsie Roll.
You failed to point out that Microsoft now likes the GPL because they can charge for their "patent protection" racket - something they can't do with the BSDs.
Ask LG, Samsung, HTC, Acer, Compal, etc., if they wish Android had been based on FreeBSD (same as OSX is) instead of Linux.
How is it a troll to point out that the GPL has caused a lot of problems that would be obviated by using BSD-licensed code (as one example, just look at the deal LG signed with Microsoft for "linux protection").
The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.
Or if you had the misfortune of driving certain Chryslers, the pin at the bottom of the barrel that turns the contact pad would snap off in normal use, and you could just remove the whole barrel by hand, no tools required (happened to me at a gas station - I filled up, went to turn the ignition on, and it spun around and around and around with no effect. Had to pull out the barrel and use a screwdriver to turn the contact pads to the right position).