The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols, file access control, and other features that are implemented by the Unix kernel or similar kernels (such as Linux).
The same could be said in reverse. GNU could have used the BSD kernel instead of the Linux kernel, and then what? Would Linux the kernel ever have been more than a hobby toy? I guess the world will never know...
First, I wouldn't say Mach has nothing to do with BSD since "Mach was initially hosted as additional code written directly into the existing 4.2BSD kernel, allowing the team to work on the system long before it was complete."
Second, Mach is a micro kernel, so much of what used to be kernel was pushed outside. They started with a BSD kernel and started pushing. You still have to have that code to "really" be kernel (and do the things a kernel does), and OS X does have it, and it is BSD.
Actually I've seen it referred to as "BSD/Mach" and "Mach/BSD", but the former seems more in keeping with the relationship as per "GNU/Linux". Further more, in terms of refuting your "not BSD, nor related", checkout Apple's Developer Connection section on Kernel Architecture:
"A kernel, in traditional operating-system terminology, is a small nucleus of software that provides only the minimal facilities necessary for implementing additional operating-system services." -- from The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System, McKusick, Bostic, Karels, and Quarterman, 1996.
Similarly, in traditional Mach-based operating systems, the kernel refers to the Mach microkernel and ignores additional low-level code without which Mach does very little. In Mac OS X, however, the kernel environment contains much more than the Mach kernel itself. The Mac OS X kernel environment includes the Mach kernel, BSD, the I/O Kit, file systems, and networking components. These are often referred to collectively as the kernel.
Well, as an example, if I buy a cellphone that uses open source code I would expect to be able to modify the open source code and run it on that cell phone. Tivo is the canonical example of this form of abuse. The fact that the code could be run elsewhere doesn't excuse not being able to run it where it was originally (i.e., on the device I purchased (my device). Using the Matrix example again, having the right to make a phone call is worthless if I'm preventing from speaking during the phone call. It doesn't matter if I'm allowed to speak as soon as I hang up the phone. To ask, "So how does preventing that specific hardware from running modified code prevent the modified code from being run elsewhere?" is the same as asking, "So how does being prevented from speaking during your phone call prevent you from speaking later?" It doesn't, and it doesn't matter because it misses the point.
You have to admit that "whats not free" is making the code available, but eliminating any possibility of using the code. Thats like saying you have the right to make a phone call, but then restricting your ability to actually speak during said phone call.
You seem to not be able to believe it, but that is exactly the point: to be able to get the source code, modify the source code, and then run the modified source code. If you eliminate the ability to run the modified code, you have perverted the intent.
The previous point still stands. If you wrote the entire codebase from scratch, you can license it as you wish. However, if you are modifying someone else's "v2 or later" code, then you can't release your modifications as "v2".
It used to be true that 'Like it or not, a "journalist" is held in higher esteem than a "tech writer" who can be right on 100% of the time but is still regarded as a hack.' It used to be true that in order to be granted an FCC license to use public airways, you had to demonstrate utility to the public good. News was one such method, and it was accepted that money would be lost producing a news show.
News is mostly infotainment today, with a few rare exceptions. After Fox managed to set the legal precedent that news doesn't need to be true, "journalism" isn't anything worthy of holding in esteem. These days a tech writer is a honest person earning an honest living, while "journalists" are entertainers and propagators of propaganda. The few remaining real journalists are lost in the noise.
No one is trying to rename a project. The linux project (which is a kernel), should be called linux. If you download the kernel, you are downloading linux. No one wants to change that. It just seems wrong to name the entire collection after the kernel.
A better car analogy would be if you bought a GM Buick that has a GM Chevy engine, is it a Buick/Chevy? Or is it a Chevy? Most of the car is still Buick, so why call it a Chevy? Does the kernel matter all that much?
I was under the impression (can't find the historical link, though) that it was due to the gnu toolchain that linus could develop linux. The AT&T lawsuit was as yet unresolved and the legality of BSD was still in question...
1) The kernel is GPL, and predates Open Source. So the credit and glory there doesn't distribute quite like you'd rather it did.
2) You say you dislike the ideals, but then don't seem to understand the users vs developer's freedoms argument is about maximizing long term freedom, which by its nature has to be somewhat idealistic.
3) Tivo's behavior was certainly all about leveraging a loophole in GPL2. I can understand phrasing GPL3 to restrict Tivo.
True enough for the GPLed code, but not so true for BSDed code. One could take a bunch of BSD code and release as GPLed code, or any license you wanted.
OK, lets say I modify LGPL program X and now I'm ready to install it. Are you suggesting that everytime someone modifies the program Apple is going to want to pay for the bandwidth (and admin costs) of tracking all those changes and making them available? Ha!
When Solaris is GPLed I can continue doing everything I do with GNU/Solaris. The kernel is a plug-and-play replaceable piece of code. Replacing the entire gnu tool-chain would be problematic, to say nothing of all the applications. I suspect that a lot of the noise is really related to Linus becoming redundant.
FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software.
No, the article points out that GPLed software is used, and that the move to GPL v3 could be a problem. Nowhere is it stated that any current code, which would be version 2, is a problem. The article is about the future impact of version three on devices that want to be closed.
In terms of rejecting the GPL making you "evil", I think that is an exaggeration. I don't think that everyone was "evil" when slavery was legal, and I don't think all men where evil when their wives were legally considered chattel property. However, as our culture evolves some do get left behind. That doesn't make you "evil", just "backwards", from my point of view.
Indeed, it is dictating what you can do with your own work, iff you link to GPLed or derive from LGPLed code. What part of "don't steal" don't you understand? Are you really arrogant enough to say, "hey! I want your code! but i don't want to have to pay attention to your license!"
The bottomline is that your own code is your own code just as long as it is independent. You want to claim independence, then be independent. You want to merge, then accept the license you are merging with...
And yet, ironically, it is you who copies part of my comment and just changes a couple of words. Consider if my comment had been subject to a license similar to the GPL. Then by now I would own your ass.
No, no, no! You don't "get" the concept at all. If you where not under something like the GPL, then you automaticly have copyright. This means that fair use applies. However, if you did have a copyright that was in the spirit of the GPL, then he could copy and modify and distribute all that he wants, as long as he uses the "spirit of the GPL" license it is under.
Slashdot Mirror
The same could be said in reverse. GNU could have used the BSD kernel instead of the Linux kernel, and then what? Would Linux the kernel ever have been more than a hobby toy? I guess the world will never know...
Won't MS Windows offer to install the necessary codecs so you can watch them? If your workplace uses it, odds are its already installed for you.
Second, Mach is a micro kernel, so much of what used to be kernel was pushed outside. They started with a BSD kernel and started pushing. You still have to have that code to "really" be kernel (and do the things a kernel does), and OS X does have it, and it is BSD. Actually I've seen it referred to as "BSD/Mach" and "Mach/BSD", but the former seems more in keeping with the relationship as per "GNU/Linux". Further more, in terms of refuting your "not BSD, nor related", checkout Apple's Developer Connection section on Kernel Architecture:
Well, as an example, if I buy a cellphone that uses open source code I would expect to be able to modify the open source code and run it on that cell phone. Tivo is the canonical example of this form of abuse. The fact that the code could be run elsewhere doesn't excuse not being able to run it where it was originally (i.e., on the device I purchased (my device). Using the Matrix example again, having the right to make a phone call is worthless if I'm preventing from speaking during the phone call. It doesn't matter if I'm allowed to speak as soon as I hang up the phone. To ask, "So how does preventing that specific hardware from running modified code prevent the modified code from being run elsewhere?" is the same as asking, "So how does being prevented from speaking during your phone call prevent you from speaking later?" It doesn't, and it doesn't matter because it misses the point.
You have to admit that "whats not free" is making the code available, but eliminating any possibility of using the code. Thats like saying you have the right to make a phone call, but then restricting your ability to actually speak during said phone call.
You seem to not be able to believe it, but that is exactly the point: to be able to get the source code, modify the source code, and then run the modified source code. If you eliminate the ability to run the modified code, you have perverted the intent.
The previous point still stands. If you wrote the entire codebase from scratch, you can license it as you wish. However, if you are modifying someone else's "v2 or later" code, then you can't release your modifications as "v2".
Personally I have no problem with increasing the restrictions that stop you from limiting my freedom :-)
If you aren't making this up, it is news. I've asked around and haven't heard any rumors. Are you playing, trolling with FUD?
It used to be true that 'Like it or not, a "journalist" is held in higher esteem than a "tech writer" who can be right on 100% of the time but is still regarded as a hack.' It used to be true that in order to be granted an FCC license to use public airways, you had to demonstrate utility to the public good. News was one such method, and it was accepted that money would be lost producing a news show.
News is mostly infotainment today, with a few rare exceptions. After Fox managed to set the legal precedent that news doesn't need to be true, "journalism" isn't anything worthy of holding in esteem. These days a tech writer is a honest person earning an honest living, while "journalists" are entertainers and propagators of propaganda. The few remaining real journalists are lost in the noise.
No one is trying to rename a project. The linux project (which is a kernel), should be called linux. If you download the kernel, you are downloading linux. No one wants to change that. It just seems wrong to name the entire collection after the kernel.
Actually Cygwin is pretty popular :-)
A better car analogy would be if you bought a GM Buick that has a GM Chevy engine, is it a Buick/Chevy? Or is it a Chevy? Most of the car is still Buick, so why call it a Chevy? Does the kernel matter all that much?
I was under the impression (can't find the historical link, though) that it was due to the gnu toolchain that linus could develop linux. The AT&T lawsuit was as yet unresolved and the legality of BSD was still in question...
I have heard it referred to as OS X/BSD, which is more like GNU/Linux than BSD/OS X is.
Cars are "open". There is a booming business in after market addons.
1) The kernel is GPL, and predates Open Source. So the credit and glory there doesn't distribute quite like you'd rather it did.
2) You say you dislike the ideals, but then don't seem to understand the users vs developer's freedoms argument is about maximizing long term freedom, which by its nature has to be somewhat idealistic.
3) Tivo's behavior was certainly all about leveraging a loophole in GPL2. I can understand phrasing GPL3 to restrict Tivo.
4) Flamebait...?
True enough for the GPLed code, but not so true for BSDed code. One could take a bunch of BSD code and release as GPLed code, or any license you wanted.
OK, lets say I modify LGPL program X and now I'm ready to install it. Are you suggesting that everytime someone modifies the program Apple is going to want to pay for the bandwidth (and admin costs) of tracking all those changes and making them available? Ha!
It seems unclear to me what you mean by "updates". It isn't enough that I can do something like "apt-get update safari".
When Solaris is GPLed I can continue doing everything I do with GNU/Solaris. The kernel is a plug-and-play replaceable piece of code. Replacing the entire gnu tool-chain would be problematic, to say nothing of all the applications. I suspect that a lot of the noise is really related to Linus becoming redundant.
FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software.
No, the article points out that GPLed software is used, and that the move to GPL v3 could be a problem. Nowhere is it stated that any current code, which would be version 2, is a problem. The article is about the future impact of version three on devices that want to be closed.
In terms of rejecting the GPL making you "evil", I think that is an exaggeration. I don't think that everyone was "evil" when slavery was legal, and I don't think all men where evil when their wives were legally considered chattel property. However, as our culture evolves some do get left behind. That doesn't make you "evil", just "backwards", from my point of view.
Indeed, it is dictating what you can do with your own work, iff you link to GPLed or derive from LGPLed code. What part of "don't steal" don't you understand? Are you really arrogant enough to say, "hey! I want your code! but i don't want to have to pay attention to your license!"
The bottomline is that your own code is your own code just as long as it is independent. You want to claim independence, then be independent. You want to merge, then accept the license you are merging with...