Hey, wait just a darn cotten picken minute; just when did you start inventing things? I bet I've got prior art on that you young wipper snapper!
As for working harder, you can have that one. Oh wait, nope, my parents generation has the prior art on that! They worked harder while I work smarter by creating new things thus improving efficiency!
Got these patents covered going back hundreds of years before the good old US of A or Canada for that matter even existed!
I'll be taking the patent "tax" cut on all those inventions young buck, we've been on the cutting edge for a long time!
Give me a box that's twice as fast (which twice as many cores is, for compiling) and the compiler will finally be able to keep up with the coding, which means no time wasted sitting around.
Just use Smalltalk which has an incremental compiler built in so that compiles take a fraction of a second. In a Smalltalk IDE system you never wait for the compiler during development.
More cores = better systems as long as programmers implement their multi-threaded applications using actual concurrency controls instead of half hearted hacks (as all hacks are).
Obviously someone with a background in human factors design and how it impacts systems needs to be involved with OpenBSD IFF OpenBSD wants to expand beyond fringe uber techies such as your and I.
Homestar Breadmaker wrote: That's an awful lot of typing to just say "I'm too stubborn and self-richeous to admit that perhaps the people running OpenBSD know more about OpenBSD than me", which is all you needed to say.
For our discussion it's not really relevant how much they know about OpenBSD. Obviously Theo knows more about OpenBSD than I since he's one of it's authors and the project's leader. Their knowledge doesn't dimish the value of what I've said.
It's clear that we disagree Homestar Breadmaker, which is fine.
It's also clear that you, Homestar Breadmaker, are unable to have a discussion without flinging insults. If I didn't know any better I'd have to hazzard a guess that you are intentionally flame baiting rather than interested in a real discussion with someone who has a different point of view than yours.
I do not like to install from the network. Most of the time it never works out or it means that I need to have a network online and ready. It also increases the bandwidth usage beyond downloading a CD when you have multiple (N > 1) installs to perform. Network installs are also slower. A Full ISO CD of an OS can be carried around and used later on without having to download again. I simply prefer a Full CD for OSes that I work with. There are many other advantages of a Full ISO CD(s) for an OS which are the reasons that most OSes out there offer it - think it through and you'll see them.
It's obvious that you, Homestar Breadmaker, have a different point of view on that. Which is fine.
I think OpenBSD is awesome and have used it for about seven or eight years now. I'd love to see it succeed to new levels beyond where it is now. Hopefully some of what I've written will be heard by those who have control of or some influence on the direction of the project. All I ask is that you seriously consider the suggestions that I've made in this thread and others attached to this/. news pointing.
our comment reflects upon your inability to grasp simple facts.
I grasp the facts you assert just fine. I simply have a different point of view where the facts you mention are not that relevant. The point of view that I have is that the more people the more likely it is that there will be more people to contribute time, effort, resources and money to the project. It's an idea called marketshare.
Oh, if you don't think that marketshare matters just ask (for example) Coke, Pepsi, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Apache, and FreeBSD to give up their marketshare freely without contest.
The ISO you pointed at is too small to be a self contained full copy of the OS (which usually is over 200 MB in size); a full copy of the OS on one or more ISO's is what I've been talking about as it allows for independent installs away from the network as well as being easier to the user.
FreeBSD, Minix, Linux, and many others have full freely available ISO of their OSes , why not OpenBSD? Oh, OpenBSD has an explicit policy of not having them just because of an outdated desire to sell the CDs. That's a policy I'd like changed (which is obvious from reading my posts).
I wrote: The more people the better.
You replied: Except that's complete and utter nonsense, as has been pointed out many times, and you simply refuse to listen. But I'm sure you know OpenBSD's finances, number of users, downloads vs cd purchases, etc much better than Theo does right?
Listening and agreeing are two seperate things. One can listen without agreeing and one can listen and have a different point of view.
I listened to your statement just fine, it's that I disagree that it has much relevance since market share is king just like cash is king.
A path to larger marketshare is to make it easier for people to use the system. When technicial people reject using OpenBSD simply because of it's lack of a full freely downloadable ISO or it's somewhat challenging (to many) install process it's clear that something must change.
Another path to funding solutions is an orgnaized annual donation drive.
Another path is grants from the Canadian or other Governments.
Another path is to find busineses that require security and sell them on OpenBSD. Oh it's interesting that Theo is located in Calgary, Alberta the Oil Capital of Canada. There must be many companies that have high security requirements ripe for the services of those in the OpenBSD community. Get out and pound the Calgary Oil pavement Theo.
Another path is ________________? (I invite you to fill in the blank with your constructive thoughts about how Theo and crew can fund OpenBSD further).
So there are many ways to financial growth for OpenBSD from contracting to increased marketshare, regardless of your repeated comments that more users won't make a positive difference to their cash flow. Remember that past performance doesn't necessarily equal future performance.
That makes me think of another path; actively search for and find new people to be involved in OpenBSD who are capable of contributing money or other resourses such as time and programming skills. Hey wait a moment, that's targeted marketing...
There are many benefits to using OpenBSD, it would be really great to see it increase it's marketshare many fold. More people = more opportunities, and opportunities in our captalist based society can mean more money.
Your comment reflects upon yourself and indicates your abilities of discourse.
They were pragmatic in their choice of FreeBSD over OpenBSD due to the lack of a full freely downloadable (or bit torrentable) ISO of the OS.
The link you point to is a "4,662 KB" file and is not a full ISO of the entire OS, and as such isn't what I was talking about.
It's not all that relevant who believes that users who simply use the system aren't contributing since that's just an opinion. However, if it's true that Theo and his crew think that then it's no wonder why people aren't contributing. Anyone who uses the system is a legimitate user otherwise OpenBSD should have a different license such as you can only use it if you contribute to it, but wait, that's not in the license so it's too late to add that.
Ok, "You're a fucking winky" is a pretty cool insult but it's not relevant and just reveals your own character.
Bandwidth is irrelevant. Ease of use is paramount, especially for those in a rush and for those with less tech savy. ISO are simply easier than having to download individual files and assemble a CD to burn.
I agree, get a job Theo and crew. Not all of us are able to pursue our software projects on our own terms. I have to work for a living and when I have time I work on my software projects. Alter the business plan to make it workable so that you have clients who pay the bills. Alter the business plan so that free OpenBSD ISO's are available. Alter the business plan so that you have an annual funding drive.
They could have downloaded the OpenBSD ISO, burned it and booted it much faster than they could with a FreeBSD ISO (since its so much smaller). But I guess that would have made too much sense.
Ah, they did try to download OpenBSD and burn it but they gave up as they were in an urgent rush and complained to me that there should be an ISO for OpenBSD! Download time was not a factor in the decision, the lack of an ISO was. This really happened last November.
The number of openbsd users has gone up an order of magnitude in the last few years. These new people do not donate, or buy cds. They do not help the project in any way.
In your opinion they don't. In my opinion they contribute by being users of the system. They have the potential of contributing directly to the project and I offer my respect to them for being users of OpenBSD.
If OpenBSD (i.e. Theo and crew) need cash to continue operations then they should start up an annual funding drive such as WikiPedia does.
To not have a downloadable or bit toorentable ISO for a free operating system (and to charge money for it) is pure folly. Make it easy and bring on the hordes!
Not relevant. Count the number Linux distributions and you'll see the non-relevance clearly. Besides diversity is good since it addresses niches that otherwise wouldn't be explored and developed.
Besides the main BSD's have diverged from each other in significant ways that they are really quite different systems now.
This is a good idea. IRAP or other government programs might be able to help. They offer tax credits for research and development that fosters real business. So Theo will likely be able to transfer those tax credits to businesses that fund him!
Yes, it's bitting hard. Downloadable and bit torrent ISO's are the best way to improve OpenBSD's accessibility for people, especially busy and less tech savy people (that's a lot of extra people if you hadn't noticed). Improving the install sequence would also help.
being in wider use doesn't help OpenBSD financially.
I submit to you that it would help OpenBSD a tremendous amount since more users mean more people are likely to support them financially.
And "takes too long to create openbsd install disks"? Seriously, how is burning an ISO image faster than burning a cd with a single directory of downloaded files on it?
Downloading and burning an ISO image is very easy and quick for anyone. Downloading directories, wondering if you got them all and how to organize them for burning takes mental effort and looking up the info, also getting the boot file options correct also takes effort; simply put the current ftp file downloads method is inferior to an ISO for people who are less tech savy or for people in a rush.
A major ISP switched from OpenBSD to FreeBSD simply for the reason that it was faster to get FreeBSD installed than OpenBSD. They could download the FreeBSD ISO, burn it and boot it very quickly. Doing the same for OpenBSD just took too long and they gave up.
It's not that the BSD license has any such clause, it's a basic principle of Copyright Law that the owners of the copyright control the license of their work. The BSD license says nothing about allowing for such a change thus it's not allowed by others to switch the license by default. Read the copyright act of your country.
Forking isn't switching the license. Forking is forking. Switching the license requires the permission of the license holders. If a license allows for others to switch the license to whatever they want then so be it, however that seems like a silly license. The original code that was forked with would still be under the original terms.
The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development.
Obviously this is why OpenBSD isn't in wider use. OpenBSD fails to recognize that this policy limits their growth. By demanding money from people for a simple install disk the people they want using their system simply go elsewhere. I've seen it happen at a major ISP who recently switched to FreeBSD beause it would take too long to create the OpenBSD install disks while FreeBSD is a snap.
More users equals the potential for more revenues. It's time to end this restrictive distribution policy that puts the breaks on free distributions of OpenBSD. Open the doors to success Theo.
Right on target. When will you make this happen Thoe?
It would also be nice to be able to download an ISO and install it within a few minutes. The installer needs improvements to make it easier for novices to start using OpenBSD.
Ok, swear words, while highly colorfull and fun to use, are not necessary for this discussion.
The original authors can switch if they so concur amoungst themselves. Others who use the licensed code can't make that decision for the original authors. While others can distirbute their enhancements under modified terms the original authors code remains under BSD terms regardless of the actions of others. This power comes from Copyright law.
Yes, the public domain is more free than BSD code. There are projects that are in the public domain. I've have contributed to them. You must be careful to clearly state that the project's source code is in the public domain. You must also realize that when you contribute code to the public domain you are giving up all your rights to that code. With BSD code you retain your rights to the code. Contribute as you see fit.
While the GPL provides a few "freedoms" it does so at a tremendous expense: the authors rights using the mechanisms of many restrictions; this is what many, including I, object to.
BSD style licensed projects have been very successful with no anarchy present and notably with no need to enforce people's natural desire to contribute with rules as the GPL does.
The only restrictions [in the GPL] are are there to preserve the freedom of others.
At the expense of the original authors, thus the GPL compromises (in the dark sense) the rights of the original authors.
I wrote: For example, you are not free to develop with it and sell your modified versions without contributing your source code back to the commune.
You replied: False. You have to give the source code to the people you sell the program to, and you have to give them permission to redistribute and modify it. That's all.
You made my point for me - you give up your rights with the GPL. With a GPL'd licensed program you are not free to add your own code and distribute it without also giving your modifications. That's a clear and simple cost of choosing the GPL which you are free to choose to do.
You may sell a warranteed version of a BSD program if you so choose. However it's you making the warrantee and not the original authors. They'd allowed you and others to freely use the code without any warrantee. If you sell it with a warrantee then you are taking on that legal obligation. Could be risky. Could be lucrative. Good luck in that business.
If someone is permitted to fork off to a proprietary licence, then I cant imagine any reason in the world why they wouldn't be able to fork off a GPL license - from which the BSD team could contribute from there.
Since the GPL is a more restrictive license than the BSD switching BSD licensed code to GPL would require the original authors to do the switching. In a project with many authors all of them would have to agree to such a switch. Since that's not likely it's thus not legally practical to switch a project such as OpenBSD from a BSD license to a GPL'd one.
Before borrowing [or begging for] money from a friend, decide which you need more. -- Addison H. Hallock
Quote just seen on this slashdot discussion page. I added the text in the block brackets.
OpenBSD provides tremendous value. Please make a significant donation. However, ask them to open up their distribution system to include OpenBSD ISO disk images freely available for download via ftp and bittorrent. OpenBSD needs to maximize the copying of their software; there are other OSes out in the sea that with easy and freely available ISO images that spread easier.
OpenBSD needs to open up their distribution so that more people can play with it easier. This means more people who can donate.
Yes the GPL frees the code by restricting the rights of Human Beings, thus it isn't freedom, it's something else and the closest thing is communism. Join at your peril.
The rights of humans are paramount. Authors are humans and thus their rights are more important than the codes. Users are humans and thus their rights are more important than the codes but not more important than the authors who actually created the work.
GPL makes the users rights more important than the authors rights. This is backwards.
You are free to bind your code into GPL if you choose, but that's the end of your freedom with that code.
A quick glance at the Apache Web Server project, BSD by the way, is all one needs to dispell the silly notion that GPL is somehow superior than BSD when it comes to projects living a long and prosperous life with plenty of code being contributed to the community.
GPL requires you to contribute your code back if you want to distribute your modications. Apache and other projects demonstrate that humans are generous by nature and contribute their code to the True Free BSD style licensed communities.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, wait just a darn cotten picken minute; just when did you start inventing things? I bet I've got prior art on that you young wipper snapper! As for working harder, you can have that one. Oh wait, nope, my parents generation has the prior art on that! They worked harder while I work smarter by creating new things thus improving efficiency! Got these patents covered going back hundreds of years before the good old US of A or Canada for that matter even existed! I'll be taking the patent "tax" cut on all those inventions young buck, we've been on the cutting edge for a long time!
Give me a box that's twice as fast (which twice as many cores is, for compiling) and the compiler will finally be able to keep up with the coding, which means no time wasted sitting around.
Just use Smalltalk which has an incremental compiler built in so that compiles take a fraction of a second. In a Smalltalk IDE system you never wait for the compiler during development.
More cores = better systems as long as programmers implement their multi-threaded applications using actual concurrency controls instead of half hearted hacks (as all hacks are).
Homestar Breadmaker wrote: slashtard with no clue... ignore your bullshit...
Yup, Homestar Breadmaker is a confirmed flame baiter. Have a nice life.
Obviously someone with a background in human factors design and how it impacts systems needs to be involved with OpenBSD IFF OpenBSD wants to expand beyond fringe uber techies such as your and I.
Homestar Breadmaker wrote: That's an awful lot of typing to just say "I'm too stubborn and self-richeous to admit that perhaps the people running OpenBSD know more about OpenBSD than me", which is all you needed to say.
/. news pointing.
For our discussion it's not really relevant how much they know about OpenBSD. Obviously Theo knows more about OpenBSD than I since he's one of it's authors and the project's leader. Their knowledge doesn't dimish the value of what I've said.
It's clear that we disagree Homestar Breadmaker, which is fine.
It's also clear that you, Homestar Breadmaker, are unable to have a discussion without flinging insults. If I didn't know any better I'd have to hazzard a guess that you are intentionally flame baiting rather than interested in a real discussion with someone who has a different point of view than yours.
I do not like to install from the network. Most of the time it never works out or it means that I need to have a network online and ready. It also increases the bandwidth usage beyond downloading a CD when you have multiple (N > 1) installs to perform. Network installs are also slower. A Full ISO CD of an OS can be carried around and used later on without having to download again. I simply prefer a Full CD for OSes that I work with. There are many other advantages of a Full ISO CD(s) for an OS which are the reasons that most OSes out there offer it - think it through and you'll see them.
It's obvious that you, Homestar Breadmaker, have a different point of view on that. Which is fine.
I think OpenBSD is awesome and have used it for about seven or eight years now. I'd love to see it succeed to new levels beyond where it is now. Hopefully some of what I've written will be heard by those who have control of or some influence on the direction of the project. All I ask is that you seriously consider the suggestions that I've made in this thread and others attached to this
our comment reflects upon your inability to grasp simple facts.
I grasp the facts you assert just fine. I simply have a different point of view where the facts you mention are not that relevant. The point of view that I have is that the more people the more likely it is that there will be more people to contribute time, effort, resources and money to the project. It's an idea called marketshare.
Oh, if you don't think that marketshare matters just ask (for example) Coke, Pepsi, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Apache, and FreeBSD to give up their marketshare freely without contest.
The ISO you pointed at is too small to be a self contained full copy of the OS (which usually is over 200 MB in size); a full copy of the OS on one or more ISO's is what I've been talking about as it allows for independent installs away from the network as well as being easier to the user.
FreeBSD, Minix, Linux, and many others have full freely available ISO of their OSes , why not OpenBSD? Oh, OpenBSD has an explicit policy of not having them just because of an outdated desire to sell the CDs. That's a policy I'd like changed (which is obvious from reading my posts).
I wrote: The more people the better.
You replied: Except that's complete and utter nonsense, as has been pointed out many times, and you simply refuse to listen. But I'm sure you know OpenBSD's finances, number of users, downloads vs cd purchases, etc much better than Theo does right?
Listening and agreeing are two seperate things. One can listen without agreeing and one can listen and have a different point of view.
I listened to your statement just fine, it's that I disagree that it has much relevance since market share is king just like cash is king.
A path to larger marketshare is to make it easier for people to use the system. When technicial people reject using OpenBSD simply because of it's lack of a full freely downloadable ISO or it's somewhat challenging (to many) install process it's clear that something must change.
Another path to funding solutions is an orgnaized annual donation drive.
Another path is grants from the Canadian or other Governments.
Another path is to find busineses that require security and sell them on OpenBSD. Oh it's interesting that Theo is located in Calgary, Alberta the Oil Capital of Canada. There must be many companies that have high security requirements ripe for the services of those in the OpenBSD community. Get out and pound the Calgary Oil pavement Theo.
Another path is ________________? (I invite you to fill in the blank with your constructive thoughts about how Theo and crew can fund OpenBSD further).
So there are many ways to financial growth for OpenBSD from contracting to increased marketshare, regardless of your repeated comments that more users won't make a positive difference to their cash flow. Remember that past performance doesn't necessarily equal future performance.
That makes me think of another path; actively search for and find new people to be involved in OpenBSD who are capable of contributing money or other resourses such as time and programming skills. Hey wait a moment, that's targeted marketing...
There are many benefits to using OpenBSD, it would be really great to see it increase it's marketshare many fold. More people = more opportunities, and opportunities in our captalist based society can mean more money.
Ya, the FreeBSD installer loop is a nightmare if you don't know what the heck is going on. That needs to be fixed somehow...
The part of the OpenBSD installer that needs simplification is the disk partition creation system. Please have simplier options.
I guess maybe they are retarded?
Your comment reflects upon yourself and indicates your abilities of discourse.
They were pragmatic in their choice of FreeBSD over OpenBSD due to the lack of a full freely downloadable (or bit torrentable) ISO of the OS.
The link you point to is a "4,662 KB" file and is not a full ISO of the entire OS, and as such isn't what I was talking about.
It's not all that relevant who believes that users who simply use the system aren't contributing since that's just an opinion. However, if it's true that Theo and his crew think that then it's no wonder why people aren't contributing. Anyone who uses the system is a legimitate user otherwise OpenBSD should have a different license such as you can only use it if you contribute to it, but wait, that's not in the license so it's too late to add that.
The more people the better.
Bandwidth is irrelevant. Can you spell B i t t o r r e n t ?
Ok, "You're a fucking winky" is a pretty cool insult but it's not relevant and just reveals your own character.
Bandwidth is irrelevant. Ease of use is paramount, especially for those in a rush and for those with less tech savy. ISO are simply easier than having to download individual files and assemble a CD to burn.
I agree, get a job Theo and crew. Not all of us are able to pursue our software projects on our own terms. I have to work for a living and when I have time I work on my software projects. Alter the business plan to make it workable so that you have clients who pay the bills. Alter the business plan so that free OpenBSD ISO's are available. Alter the business plan so that you have an annual funding drive.
They could have downloaded the OpenBSD ISO, burned it and booted it much faster than they could with a FreeBSD ISO (since its so much smaller). But I guess that would have made too much sense.
Ah, they did try to download OpenBSD and burn it but they gave up as they were in an urgent rush and complained to me that there should be an ISO for OpenBSD! Download time was not a factor in the decision, the lack of an ISO was. This really happened last November.
The number of openbsd users has gone up an order of magnitude in the last few years. These new people do not donate, or buy cds. They do not help the project in any way.
In your opinion they don't. In my opinion they contribute by being users of the system. They have the potential of contributing directly to the project and I offer my respect to them for being users of OpenBSD.
If OpenBSD (i.e. Theo and crew) need cash to continue operations then they should start up an annual funding drive such as WikiPedia does.
To not have a downloadable or bit toorentable ISO for a free operating system (and to charge money for it) is pure folly. Make it easy and bring on the hordes!
Not relevant. Count the number Linux distributions and you'll see the non-relevance clearly. Besides diversity is good since it addresses niches that otherwise wouldn't be explored and developed.
Besides the main BSD's have diverged from each other in significant ways that they are really quite different systems now.
This is a good idea. IRAP or other government programs might be able to help. They offer tax credits for research and development that fosters real business. So Theo will likely be able to transfer those tax credits to businesses that fund him!
Yes, it's bitting hard. Downloadable and bit torrent ISO's are the best way to improve OpenBSD's accessibility for people, especially busy and less tech savy people (that's a lot of extra people if you hadn't noticed). Improving the install sequence would also help.
being in wider use doesn't help OpenBSD financially.
I submit to you that it would help OpenBSD a tremendous amount since more users mean more people are likely to support them financially.
And "takes too long to create openbsd install disks"? Seriously, how is burning an ISO image faster than burning a cd with a single directory of downloaded files on it?
Downloading and burning an ISO image is very easy and quick for anyone. Downloading directories, wondering if you got them all and how to organize them for burning takes mental effort and looking up the info, also getting the boot file options correct also takes effort; simply put the current ftp file downloads method is inferior to an ISO for people who are less tech savy or for people in a rush.
A major ISP switched from OpenBSD to FreeBSD simply for the reason that it was faster to get FreeBSD installed than OpenBSD. They could download the FreeBSD ISO, burn it and boot it very quickly. Doing the same for OpenBSD just took too long and they gave up.
It's not that the BSD license has any such clause, it's a basic principle of Copyright Law that the owners of the copyright control the license of their work. The BSD license says nothing about allowing for such a change thus it's not allowed by others to switch the license by default. Read the copyright act of your country.
Forking isn't switching the license. Forking is forking. Switching the license requires the permission of the license holders. If a license allows for others to switch the license to whatever they want then so be it, however that seems like a silly license. The original code that was forked with would still be under the original terms.
The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development.
Obviously this is why OpenBSD isn't in wider use. OpenBSD fails to recognize that this policy limits their growth. By demanding money from people for a simple install disk the people they want using their system simply go elsewhere. I've seen it happen at a major ISP who recently switched to FreeBSD beause it would take too long to create the OpenBSD install disks while FreeBSD is a snap.
More users equals the potential for more revenues. It's time to end this restrictive distribution policy that puts the breaks on free distributions of OpenBSD. Open the doors to success Theo.
Right on target. When will you make this happen Thoe?
It would also be nice to be able to download an ISO and install it within a few minutes. The installer needs improvements to make it easier for novices to start using OpenBSD.
Actually, OpenBSD is a highly successful fork.
Ok, swear words, while highly colorfull and fun to use, are not necessary for this discussion.
The original authors can switch if they so concur amoungst themselves. Others who use the licensed code can't make that decision for the original authors. While others can distirbute their enhancements under modified terms the original authors code remains under BSD terms regardless of the actions of others. This power comes from Copyright law.
Yes, the public domain is more free than BSD code. There are projects that are in the public domain. I've have contributed to them. You must be careful to clearly state that the project's source code is in the public domain. You must also realize that when you contribute code to the public domain you are giving up all your rights to that code. With BSD code you retain your rights to the code. Contribute as you see fit.
While the GPL provides a few "freedoms" it does so at a tremendous expense: the authors rights using the mechanisms of many restrictions; this is what many, including I, object to.
BSD style licensed projects have been very successful with no anarchy present and notably with no need to enforce people's natural desire to contribute with rules as the GPL does.
The only restrictions [in the GPL] are are there to preserve the freedom of others.
At the expense of the original authors, thus the GPL compromises (in the dark sense) the rights of the original authors.
I wrote: For example, you are not free to develop with it and sell your modified versions without contributing your source code back to the commune.
You replied: False. You have to give the source code to the people you sell the program to, and you have to give them permission to redistribute and modify it. That's all.
You made my point for me - you give up your rights with the GPL. With a GPL'd licensed program you are not free to add your own code and distribute it without also giving your modifications. That's a clear and simple cost of choosing the GPL which you are free to choose to do.
You may sell a warranteed version of a BSD program if you so choose. However it's you making the warrantee and not the original authors. They'd allowed you and others to freely use the code without any warrantee. If you sell it with a warrantee then you are taking on that legal obligation. Could be risky. Could be lucrative. Good luck in that business.
If someone is permitted to fork off to a proprietary licence, then I cant imagine any reason in the world why they wouldn't be able to fork off a GPL license - from which the BSD team could contribute from there.
Since the GPL is a more restrictive license than the BSD switching BSD licensed code to GPL would require the original authors to do the switching. In a project with many authors all of them would have to agree to such a switch. Since that's not likely it's thus not legally practical to switch a project such as OpenBSD from a BSD license to a GPL'd one.
Before borrowing [or begging for] money from a friend, decide which you need more. -- Addison H. Hallock
Quote just seen on this slashdot discussion page. I added the text in the block brackets.
OpenBSD provides tremendous value. Please make a significant donation. However, ask them to open up their distribution system to include OpenBSD ISO disk images freely available for download via ftp and bittorrent. OpenBSD needs to maximize the copying of their software; there are other OSes out in the sea that with easy and freely available ISO images that spread easier.
OpenBSD needs to open up their distribution so that more people can play with it easier. This means more people who can donate.
Yes the GPL frees the code by restricting the rights of Human Beings, thus it isn't freedom, it's something else and the closest thing is communism. Join at your peril.
The rights of humans are paramount. Authors are humans and thus their rights are more important than the codes. Users are humans and thus their rights are more important than the codes but not more important than the authors who actually created the work.
GPL makes the users rights more important than the authors rights. This is backwards.
You are free to bind your code into GPL if you choose, but that's the end of your freedom with that code.
A quick glance at the Apache Web Server project, BSD by the way, is all one needs to dispell the silly notion that GPL is somehow superior than BSD when it comes to projects living a long and prosperous life with plenty of code being contributed to the community.
GPL requires you to contribute your code back if you want to distribute your modications. Apache and other projects demonstrate that humans are generous by nature and contribute their code to the True Free BSD style licensed communities.