Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."
Order by: Score:
license incompatiablity
by shemminger on Thu 1st Feb 2007 15:40 UTC
shemminger
Member since:
2007-02-01

How does this handle the fact that BSD and GPL licences are not alike?

Reply Score: 1

RE: license incompatiablity
by binarycrusader on Thu 1st Feb 2007 15:54 UTC in reply to "license incompatiablity"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Because the GPL is not incompatible with the BSD license and the end user is the one doing the driver building most likely.

Reply Score: 5

RE: license incompatiablity
by butters on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "license incompatiablity"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Probably by using the (unfortunately not so well known) fact that NO free software license places restrictions on how you USE the code (as opposed to distributing the code). Rest assured that you are free to link code licensed under incompatible licenses to your heart's content as long as you don't distribute the linked binary.

Now, the author is distributing binary .ko modules, which are presumably built from GPL Linux driver code linked with GPL Linux compatibility code, but also linked with BSD kernel header files. Kernel modules are a grey area in the definition of "derivative work." Many people believe that kernel modules, even distributed separately from the core kernel, are inherently derivative works of the kernel whose headers were linked in at build time. Others think this should be an exception for pragmatic reasons.

Regardless, if you download the sources and build the modules yourself, there is no grey area. This is perfectly legal and, in fact, a right protected by all OSI-approved licenses.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: license incompatiablity
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE: license incompatiablity"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"Regardless, if you download the sources and build the modules yourself, there is no grey area. This is perfectly legal and, in fact, a right protected by all OSI-approved licenses."

Is that so? The NVidia driver works exactly like this - you download their installer and the installer compiles the kernel module on that machine. Yet lots and lots of people say that this is illegal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: license incompatiablity
by Oliver on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: license incompatiablity"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Guess why, because the Nvidia driver isn't open source! You shouldn' read the excerpt above only, but the whole text at the website too. If it's ready you're using sourcecode of webcams and FreeBSD Linux emulation layer. The latter is already known since years.

Reply Score: 1

FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Uhm... no? I quote butters:
"Probably by using the (unfortunately not so well known) fact that NO free software license places restrictions on how you USE the code (as opposed to distributing the code). Rest assured that you are free to link code licensed under incompatible licenses to your heart's content as long as you don't distribute the linked binary."

According to butters, the license of the kernel module doesn't matter, as long as you don't distribute the linked binary. And that's exactly what NVidia is doing: they're not distributing linked binary kernel modules.

Reply Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Butters is right. This "compile by yourself is legal" clause is one (if not the main) reason why the attempt to block all binary kernel modules as of 2008/01/01 suggested by GKH recently was turned down[1].

With respect to the binary video drivers from NVIDIA and ATI the two crucial points are

- That distributions can't distribute the already linked binary kernel modules (like for example in the incident with the Kororaa Live CD[2])

- Whether the wrapper code for the binary blob itself can be considered a derivative work of the kernel, or just a code "using the structures provided by the kernel"

I have little experience with the latter issue (although it seems to be a proverbial grey area that is here to remain), but the first is almost clearly in violation of the GPL and should therefore be avoided.

Hope that clears things up

[1]http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475890
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kororaa#Kororaa_XGL_Live_CD_and_the_GP...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: license incompatiablity
by elsewhere on Thu 1st Feb 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: license incompatiablity"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

According to butters, the license of the kernel module doesn't matter, as long as you don't distribute the linked binary. And that's exactly what NVidia is doing: they're not distributing linked binary kernel modules.

Actually, they are. nVidia does make binary modules compiled against specific versions of Suse distribution kernels available for download, for instance.

Their legal department seems comfortable with the fact that their binary blob is not derivative of the kernel, since it is OS-agnostic and the exact same blob is used on Windows and *nix. I suspect their legal department is correct.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: license incompatiablity
by jimveta on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: license incompatiablity"
jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

Actually, AFAIK -- and someone correct me if I'm wrong -- the binary modules are NOT LINKED (even when "compiled against" or basically using the kernel source/headers from a specific distro). I think all drivers for *nix OSs are like that: they are essentially like *.o object files and are NOT LINKED until loaded into the kernel.

There is not a pre-established dependency in the *.ko or drivers of where to find its external functions. In other words, there is no nothing in the module themselves that state they strictly require a linux kernel. It's theoretically possible to load and link those modules against a different kernel. To "link" means to establish a dependency for symbol resolution. But in these cases, the drivers don't care where they find their external symbols as long as they're found.

On the other hand, compiling the modules into the kernel as part of the kernel boot image then distributing it, would I think violate the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: license incompatiablity
by Oliver on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: license incompatiablity"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's a test, not the final distribution!

>The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-copyleft . Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL insist that modified versions of the program must be free software as well. Non-copyleft licenses do not insist on this. We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

>So, i am making available some pieces of software that you may want to use at your own risk (full source is available in the tarball, most of this code is under a GPL license)

So in the end, if the project is ready for daily work, you have to compile it. But anyway, this is the way in FreeBSD, compiling it from source.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: license incompatiablity
by Cloudy on Thu 1st Feb 2007 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE: license incompatiablity"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Many people believe that kernel modules, even distributed separately from the core kernel, are inherently derivative works of the kernel whose headers were linked in at build time.

A good example of what many people believe not being so.

One of the few parts of the GPL controversy for which there is any relevant case law is whether linking against headers qualifies as derivation. The courts have ruled that it is not.

The basic legal premise is that headers constitute an interface description and that by definition using an interface is not derivative of the software being interfaced with.

Reply Score: 5

RE: license incompatiablity
by Joe User on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:39 UTC in reply to "license incompatiablity"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Most software on BSD distros is GPL already (KDE, Gnome, X, XFCE, etc...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: license incompatiablity
by Jerry on Thu 1st Feb 2007 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE: license incompatiablity"
Jerry Member since:
2007-02-01

'X' isn't GPL at all..

Please see,
http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.1/doc/README2.html#2

Reply Score: 4

RE: license incompatiablity
by dylansmrjones on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "license incompatiablity"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The licenses are not necessarily incompatible. Only the old BSD-license is incompatible with GPL. However, it doesn't matter if the compilation happens at the end user.

Reply Score: 3

How is this done?
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:08 UTC
FooBarWidget
Member since:
2005-11-11

I'm really wondering how this works. Considering that the Linux kernel ABI and API changes all the time, and that older Linux kernel modules sources don't always compile even with the real Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 2

v Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:28 UTC
RE: Miss-information
by Oliver on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:33 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Such a nonsense in this short time? One of the usual GNUish zealots, who don't care about open source, just about licenses and their ego!

>Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone.

This is a fact.

>who was closed and is now being used under other licenses inside Microsoft Windows OS and Apple MAC OS X .

Hey Mr. Zealot, you've forgotten to mention Linux and it's viral GPL. It's already offtopic thanks to some zealots, so it doesn't matter anymore. Speaking tacheles is most of time the only way to cope with zealots.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE[3]: Miss-information
by bsd_geek on Thu 1st Feb 2007 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
bsd_geek Member since:
2006-05-04

" you've forgotten to mention Linux and it's viral GPL."

No , the GPL is not viral , it does not spread on its own. Also there is no BSD code inside the GPL that is not accessible or changed to a license that dont permit BSD to use it. I was not clear enough apparently so now you cant twist reality to your lies.


Moulin-goof,

Yes, it is viral and everyone knows it. Many just don't want to admit it. You know, people like you.

How's it viral? If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd.

Don't be such a douche bag either. Just because people use the term 'viral' it doesn't mean that they believe the code will infect other code on it's own. It's a term used loosely. It means the code will 'infect' other code when used.

Anyway, I'm done with that.

I believe that GPL code has been used in the FreeBSD kernel before, but only as a module. I think there is some sort of violation if GPL code is compiled into the kernel. I think this was true for certain audio drivers awhile back ago. It's been awhile so I've forgotten.

Personally, I like OpenBSD's route of making everything BSD licensed. It's kinda crazy, but helpful. Yes, even helpful to those who just want to make a fast buck on someone else's code. That's the freedom of the BSD license. ;)

What I don't get is why do so many people bitch about the BSD license and not the MIT license. They're quite similar. They're pretty much equivalent. It's probably because so man Linux machines run X Windows and they don't want to step on their toes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Miss-information
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"How's it viral? If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd."

Uhm, no. The other code doesn't force me to GPL my own code. I choose to GPL my code. If I don't want my code to be GPL'ed then I don't use the other code. It's as simple as that.

Even if I "accidentally" put GPL'ed code in my own code, then my own code still isn't GPL'ed. It is a license violation and copyright violation however. The owner of the code can sue me, and I'll have to compensate him or remove the GPL'ed code from my codebase, but my own codebase still isn't automatically GPL'ed.

What are you complaining about? If I take source code from Microsoft Office and paste it inside my own software then that would be a copyright violation. Yet nobody's complaining that closed source code is "viral" or "destructive" or whatever.

Edited 2007-02-01 19:39

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Miss-information
by Manik on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see how your post contradict the parent. He says : If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd. You answer : Uhm, no. The other code doesn't force me to GPL my own code[...]If I don't want my code to be GPL'ed then I don't use the other code.

And if you "accidentally" use GPL'ed code in your code, and do not GPL it, you'll be sued, and will have either to remove the GPL'ed code (cease and desist), or GPL your code (I have yet to see a developper suing for reuse of his code in a GPL application).

As for the last part of your comment, I thought the goal of free software was precisely to be reused, if necessary, under the conditions mandated by the license. AFAIK, Microsoft doesn't allow any reuse of its code, so it cannot be viral.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Miss-information
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Miss-information"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

- "Viral" means that I have no choice, that someone or something forces me to GPL my code even if I don't want to. Just like how a virus infects me when I don't want to be sick. That is not the case - the choice is ultimately up to me. Therefore it cannot be viral.
- Yes I can get sued, but I still have the choice to remove the GPL'ed code instead of GPLing my entire codebase.
- "Viral" has a heavily negative meaning. The GPL is not inherently negative.

Instead of calling it "viral", call it "transitive". That is a much more objective word than a flamebait-loaded word like "viral".

Edited 2007-02-01 22:54

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
RE[5]: Miss-information
by hamster on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"No , its not. Care to see me in court with your real name with it ? So that I can make some money of you ? Because the viral effect nonsense was tried and discarded with prejudice in a court of law. Ask your lawyer to search for "Daniel Wallace" he tried a couple of attack on the GPL and got them all trown out of court with prejudice , the viral effect was part of one of them. "

You might even wanna take a look at the definition of viral...

"Viral phenomena are objects or patterns able to replicate themselves or convert other objects into copies of themselves when these objects are exposed to them."

What happens when the gpl comes in contact with a compatible licens?

And before you start putting names out there you might wanna take a look at what the court cases were about. None of them were about the viral effect of the gpl but about some weird idea about price fixing.

Funny to see you dig your hole even deeper.

"The problem you have is that you don't know what viral is and loosely don't really count in reality or in a court of law. "

For someone who dont' seem to understand the definition of viral and who make claims about a court case about other things being able to decide that the gpl isnt viral you really shouldn't talk about what other people know and don't know.

"
BTW read my other post I also suggested that X should be made GPL so that more funds and support be given to it. "

What makes you think they would make that change now?

"Don't worry about BSD , I am on the case ;-)"

Yeah i'm sure they need a good laugh.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Miss-information"
RE[7]: Miss-information
by hamster on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Miss-information"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=d...

# Having to do with a virus.
www.stjude.org/glossary

# A self-propagating practice or pattern of Internet use that moves from person to person. Works best in consumer e-commerce because of easy adoption. Longer sales cycle for b2b e-commerce makes viral practices less important. Example: HotMail's explosive growth
www.eyefortransport.com/glossary/uv.shtml

# Pertaining to viruses.
www.pestmanagement.co.uk/lib/glossary/glossary_v.shtml

# spread by non-standard comunication.
www.awaredesign.co.nz/glossary.html

# relating to or caused by a virus; "viral infection"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Viral phenomena are objects or patterns able to replicate themselves or convert other objects into copies of themselves when these objects are exposed to them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral "

You forgot one... Funny enough the one i used. I cant say i'm surpriced that you did'nt use that one in your post as it would prove your self wrong.

"Nothing ... someone as to introduce GPL code in something else or use it as its base for it to come into effect ... There is GPL coded software on Windows and Apple if it where viral Windows and Apple would be entirely GPL by now just by being in contact with it ... What can I say reality don't have much value in your fabulations and lies. "

It's funny how pimple faced kids who are affraid of bigger kids allways needs to insult others on the internet. Atleast you could find something real to say your bs about insted of just rewriting reality so it fits into your basementworld.
Just what would happend if i were to port a gpled driver to freebsd? Would the result be that the driver was bsdl'ed or would it be gpl'ed?

"That's one of them , lets just say he really hate the GPL and got special funding to attack it so he tried more then once on various subject. "

Well lets see something to back that statement up... Or is it just the usual bs from you?

"I ain't digging a hole at all. "

What do you call all your bs then? Getting deeper and deeper every post you write.

"Thats where your wrong ... But don't worry about me. "

I don't... All i'm worried about is that someone might actually believe your crap insted of looking into it...

"I don't make claim. "

Well you havent been able to suuport your claims with anything real yet...

"
Talk is cheap , lets see each other in court hamster , spin that wheelllllll ;-) "

I somehow doubt you old enough to go to court...

"Well they can prove me right by dual licensing it and see just how really wrong they are , but I don't hold my breath on that one. "

Your point being? I asked you what made you think they would switch go another licens when they like the one they use now... You as a linux pophead should be quite happy with it aswell. It's no as if linux havent enjoyed code under the bsdl.

"I dont know why , but laughing is not what I see them doing when they see my name , but I could be wrong on that , because for me BSD is all a big joke that goes nowhere."

They might have the same fear as i have.. that people actually believe your bs... If you atleast had something to back it up with you might be worth a minut but it doesnt seem to be the case... Your the notparker of the linux world... Only he could back atleast some of his talk up.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Miss-information
by Joe User on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:42 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

It's a good thing that you can use BSD code in your commercial applications. It's the goal of the BSD license: Being able to use the code the way you want, be it in free or closed software. This is not the case with evil GPL license. Developers should boycott anything that is GPL infected.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Miss-information
by hyper on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:57 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
RE: Miss-information
by tristan on Thu 1st Feb 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

Moulinneuf,

Speaking as someone who thinks that the GPL is a better deal than the BSD licence, I have to say that I have never read such ill-informed, ranting rubbish in all my life.

To think that you and I are supposedly batting for the same team is just embarrassing.

If the BSD projects want to use GPL code, be it drivers or graphical toolkits or whatever, then good luck to them. Sharing code is, after all, one of the fundamental things about the open-source idea. I fail to see how this harms Linux in any way -- it's not as if Apple could turn round and start including these GPL'd drivers in the next version of MacOS, is it?

There is no violation of the GPL here, and the FreeBSD people are doing exactly what they're permitted to do with the Linux kernel code. It's all right and all above board.

(Incidentally, this touches on one of the points that I don't really understand about the BSD community -- the idea that Linux "steals" their code. If you release something under the BSD licence, then you're saying anybody can use it for any purpose they like. It's a bit rich to then turn round and complain when a Linux developer does exactly that.)

Edited 2007-02-01 18:08

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Miss-information
by sean on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

(Incidentally, this touches on one of the points that I don't really understand about the BSD community -- the idea that Linux "steals" their code. If you release something under the BSD licence, then you're saying anybody can use it for any purpose they like. It's a bit rich to then turn round and complain when a Linux developer does exactly that.)

Here are my thoughts of why it possibly bothers people. People may disagree with them, but it does not stop how others may feel. There are probably other reasons this bothers other BSD-licensed project developers that I do not recall nor am aware.

The BSD license allows sharing to everyone regardless of what they do with it. If a branch of the source is closed, then that is in essence a dead branch to the original project. If the source is wrapped within the GPL, then it becomes a competitor to the original project based on the license instead of the direction.

Unless explicitly performed, the GPL-licensed project does not share back with the BSD-licensed project. It is all one-way. The reason this does not feel good to the people in the BSD-licensed project is that it feels like the GPL-licensed project is only there to replace them. Since both are open-source and need developers, they compete for developers from the same pool.

As for the closed-source project, it will either diverge away silently (at least to the open-source community), die or share source back with the original project just to make it easier to merge changes later back into their branch. Regardless of the direction, it will not be competing for open-source developers.

If the GPL-license branch had stayed BSD-licensed, then the only competition would have been on the features and/or lack of bugs between the two projects. It does not feel like you are competing against yourself plus others when you are able to incorporate source from the other project into yours. The reason this is not a bother with closed-source projects is that they rarely (if ever) kill off the open-source project even with an MIT, BSD or Apache license. OpenSSH and Apache are good examples. mod_ssl actually killed off the closed-source competitor of it.

The time--it really has been that long ago?--I recall about the BSD community complaining about the Linux community "stealing" was actually due to a copyright violation by a developer who ripped the copyrights of some header files in the FreeBSD source. Here http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml is mention of it.

BUGS
I ramble a lot. ;)

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
RE[2]: Miss-information
by molnarcs on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

(Incidentally, this touches on one of the points that I don't really understand about the BSD community -- the idea that Linux "steals" their code. If you release something under the BSD licence, then you're saying anybody can use it for any purpose they like. It's a bit rich to then turn round and complain when a Linux developer does exactly that.)

Don't confuse some misguided fanboys with the bsd community at large. In my experience, the bsd folks are proud rather than annoyed when someone else uses their code, even if they don't contribute back. Just think about it: whom do you hear bitching about Apple using parts of FreeBSD? It's almost never bsd folks, but GPL zealots like Moulinneuf, who cannot respect other people's choices.

I too consider GPL a better choice btw - in fact, I think that's the single most important (and brilliant) invention of the Free Software Movement. But still, being a part of the BSD community I can see their points - or lack thereof: most of the developers I know (not personally, but from reading the bsd mailing lists) simply don't care about ideological issues. They don't want to care about these issues (for better or worse) - they just want to write code, and get it out there. BSD license is something that is simple and straightforward, and serves that purpose (well, mostly, PHK uses the beerware license, because he considers - tongue in cheek - the BSD license too complicated ;) )

There are also cases when the BSD license makes more sense: if you want something to become an industry standard, and it is a core technology, than BSD like licenses are a better choice. That's why XFree choose the similar MIT license (there were other competing proprietary alternatives at that time) - and that is why companies developing proprietary unices could easily adopt it (and hence, turning it into an industry standard) without having to consider the implications discussed here. Similarly, a BSD/MIT license makes sense for other core technologies like BIND for instance.

The purpose of Free Software is to guarantee certain rights to end users - and both the GPL and the BSD license does that, however, it is only the former that perpetuates these rights down the line of adopters (and I think that is an important goal). We are speaking of two free software projects here, and sharing code between them - and I just can't understand those people who make such a fuss about it. Its not like the BSD folks try to change the licensing of code originating from linux. GPL code will stay GPL, and according to the FSF, these are compatible licenses. QED

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
RE[4]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I hope I understand you correctly, but...

"BSD don't help make anything , it help destroy itself and cut funding and support to itself as it as no effect on anything else."

Actually, BSD helps making a commercial project (developing software for medical IT infrastructure). The BSD license allows me to do so. The customer does not pay for the BSD parts, but for the parts that are developed on the BSD basis. The final product is not licensed under BSDL. The FreeBSD parts still are.

If the project runs well, I surely will donate money to the FreeBSD developer team, and even think about releasing some libraries to the FreeBSD ports collection, if they may be usable for anybody else.

Furthermore, BSDs have interchange effects, for example parts of OpenBSD are "translated to" and used in FreeBSD.

"Thats why it as to rely on GNU/Linux and GPL. Witch they hate because they know its what they could have been , its a constant reminder that because they failed we adapted and are now doing better then they do."

Who are "they"?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
RE[6]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Wow !!! thats truly an exception with BSD !! your a model to follow !!! ( I was being cynical here )"

I'm sure you've been. So let me explain my intention in a few words: FreeBSD is suitable for *this* special purpose, and the BSDL allows me to use it for a commercial project.

Furthermore, I considered to contribute to the german branch of FreeBSD, e. g. translating manpages. But actually my time does not allow this. I'm not a developer who gets paid for the work (I work in psychiatry), but I'll take the chance to improve my situation.

Whithout giving money, what else am I doing to help BSD? I use it. Now you may ask: How does this help? The answer is simple: I use it, and I give it to others who use it as well. This gives BSD a usage share (don't mix with "market share"). The more people use it, the higher is the chance that someone who can afford it takes notice of the possibility to offer money.

"Why not give money , just to say thanks for using there code ... no if no buts no waiting ... Wait that would mean your a decent and honorable human being , cant let that happen ..."

As soon as I can afford it, be sure I'll donate money in order to contribute to the FreeBSD project. No need to be impolite.

"Your such a big man !!! ( guess if I am cynical here ... ) [...] Yes not releasing them and keeping them only to yourself is really helpful to other projects. I wonder why the term lagging behind suddenly make sense to me. But thats not your fault , right ? Wrong ..."

I surely won't release anything to the community that is not usable for anybody and / or anything. Step by step. First it has to work, and if there's a chance that someone will be able to use the stuff I created, I will release it. But release something that's so special that nobody can take any advantage of it? No, I won't.

"Yes , unlike GNU/Linux where its all source compatible ..."

Is it? I'm not that involved with GNU/Linux so I can't tell... does a RHEL 6 application compile on SuSE 5.2? Okay, that might be a bad example. I'm not sure I understood you right.

"look up in the mirror and look up BSD on Google ... all of they."

All of them. :-)

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE: Miss-information
by hamster on Thu 1st Feb 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"Second , this one single webpage ( not even a site or project ) , is reversing reality by saying that somehow the driver paid and made by GNU/Linux developer and the GNU/Linux community should support FreeBSD. Cooperate with FreeBSD yes , work for them for free and no support whatsoever NO !!! "

If anyone should know anything about reversing reality it should be you... Who's asking for free work?

"Fourth the documentation is also available so does the source code except its all GPL. Witch I doubt the illegal derivative they are trying to make from GPL code are going to be. "

Illegal? Do you even know what your talking about here or are you just ranting as usual?

"Fifth why emulate when you can just add the missing code to FreeBSD just as long as it stay GPL. Its not like the rest of BSD is not GPL based anyway ... KDE , GNOME , XFREE , X.org , etc ... "

Ohh i see your just on your usual ranting again. Talking about things you clearly have no idea about.

You might wanna take a look at this from the xfree site...

"Code submitted under the restrictions of the GPL are not acceptable and will be refused "

and from the x.org site...

"The X Window System is distributed under the MIT ("X") License by the X.Org Foundation LLC."

And xfree, x.org, KDE and grome isnt a really big part of any bsd.

"Finally making anything BSD is a waste of time and money as shown by everything BSD ( in the last four decades ) who was closed and is now being used under other licenses inside Microsoft Windows OS and Apple MAC OS X . It does not sustain nor support itself and end up lagging behind its own derivative. "

Well we allready established that you don't know what your talking about... no need to show more.

"Its just another sad attempt at slandering and libel of GNU/Linux by BSD. They don't want it working or any cooperation , they want to slander and libel only. "

Funny thing is i see more of that from the linux side... You should try to read your own posts.

"Otherwise they would have made a proper project website ( use sourceforge for example + some wiki ), they would have asked all BSD for funding and cooperation and instead of Mud slinging they would have asked for cooperation and help from GNU/Linux. "

Ohh you talk about the same kind of help openbsd got from all the linux distroes that uses openssh..?

"Its just usual BSD garbage that leads them nowhere."

If you changed bsd with mine and them with me you'd be right on the money... The same old bs you allways come up with.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE: Miss-information
by SReilly on Thu 1st Feb 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

"slandering and libel"

Found a thesaurus, eh? Doesn't make any deference as it's still painfully obvious your still spouting the same aggressive prose as before.

Dude, stuff like this is pure flame bait and frankly I'm tired of hearing your ignorant anti BSD waffle every time theirs a BSD related article on this site.

FFS, either give it a rest or grow up!

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE[3]: Miss-information
by SReilly on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Don't you realize that your aggressive, not to mention ignorant, posts are not what anybody here wants to read (you pedantic f*ck)? When I check out your post this morning you had already been voted down to -2.

If you can't join the dots and figure that out then frankly your the blind one.

Dude, don't start pis*ing me off cause I will start monitoring every post you make for off topic and/or offensive content and vote you down until you either learn to be civil, or get the f*ck off this forum.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Miss-information
by mwndk on Thu 1st Feb 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
mwndk Member since:
2005-07-27

"Third , it make the false accusation that most of them are illegal and back-porting and sniffing based on what all BSD do all the time when USB is a standard and that developer are legally working on making them work since USB is a standard."

Just to be sure, are you sure what this project is about? Where in the URL you post, is the information to write own driver support for the three mentiond USB devices? I couldn't find them

"Finally making anything BSD is a waste of time and money as shown by everything BSD ( in the last four decades ) who was closed and is now being used under other licenses inside Microsoft Windows OS and Apple MAC OS X . It does not sustain nor support itself and end up lagging behind its own derivative."
Face it, bsd's likes free as in free beer, not as in freedom.
Don't you think that the community got something back? You think everything is completly lost, when someone chooses to use your code?
BSD works for well know features, that all has to be rocksolid.
There is no problem in others is earn some money. What is the problem?

"Its just another sad attempt at slandering and libel of GNU/Linux by BSD. They don't want it working or any cooperation , they want to slander and libel only."
Please do not loose your head, you know that this is not true.

Edited 2007-02-01 21:58

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE[3]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"BSD is not Free , because it gets closed and switched ..."

What does this mean?

BSD seems to be very free. From the copyright file:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Where's the problem here?

I don't know if you've had a scientific education. One of the first things you learn: Give the sources of your citations. You take some text (literally or not) from a book of some author and use it in your paper. Then you identify the respective passage as being quoted and name the book where you've taken it from. But you don't give the author any money for doing it.

With the BSDL, it seems to be similar. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have to include the license ("name the source") if you want to use source or binary stuff in your redistribution ("your paper"). You do not have to give your sourcecode back to the BSD team, but you *may*, if you wish to do so.

"I used to think differently , now I know better , my code with BSD become there code."

As far as I understood, BSD explicitly allows you to use BSD code as long as you mention it and include the license. What you implement using BSD does not belong to BSD in any concern. But you may contribute back. In my opinion many "hobby developers" (I may include myself here) are not sure if the things they implement are worth contributed back to the BSD project...

''"BSD works for well know features, that all has to be rocksolid. "

I don't get that one But I am sure I disagree with it anyway as to do with know features and rock solid with BSD as only example.''


I think you make discussion complicated. "I don't understand you but I disagree" is not a good basis.

From my experience, "rock solid" is correct, but I'm no casemodder, nor am I rich enough to buy up-to-date hardware to fiddle around with it. :-) So can't tell about BSD as a means of hardware experimentation.

"That don't help BSD at all if others always get the money."

Can't you imagine that there are people who are morally educated that well so they will contribute back to BSD which helped them to earn money? They exist, be sure.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
RE[5]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"That BSD's will allow closing of the code ( ultimate freedom remover ) and switching to another license ( ultimate license usage remover )."

Yes, it's possible and explicitely allowed by the BSDL. See the many projects using the BSDL and being free - they don't close code.

May I ask you if you're coming from a capitalistic oriented country? If not, maybe you're not understanding that exactly this freedom (of closing code) is neccessary to get market share? The term "market share" is always used to proof why one product is good (has a high market share) and another product is bad (has a low market share). Isn't this what capitalists want?

And about switching to other licenses: That's not true. Code that is BSDL will stay BSDL. If I use it, I have to include the BSDL's text in my documentation. I may release my software (the parts I've written myself) under the BSDL or under the GPL. I may also *not* release my source code. I may use BSDL code included into a commercial project as long as I follow the BSDL's instructions.

"List all the bad things for Open Source and Free Software and BSD's as it."

I think I don't understand you.

"No , because in a true scientific environment , you dont get locked out of scientific data or from the improvment or derivative made to/from it."

In science, in academia, you're usually locked in with some old fashioned MICROS~1 products. This goes for programs and for data.

I may tell you that everyone serious uses standardized and free data storage systems such as XML so there's no chance for getting locked in with the data created. To give you an example: I implemented a simple test analysis tool for the SCL-90-R checklist which runs on FreeBSD. Input data and result data are stored as a text file so I can use it anywhere I want. Anyone else can, too. But I don't see it's neccessary to release the program's source scl90r.c because it's dirty coded, it's in german only and anyone else may only work with it if he has bought the original test before in order to use the program legally (which costs some money). I don't want to bother anyone just because I'm to lazy to evaluate test by hand, just because the BSDL allows me to do so. :-)

"That's the problem , you claim to understand but you jump to other points and avoid point I make and take the discussion in another direction to avoid them directly. Your not honest in your discussion."

Maybe it seems to you to be this way. Maybe because english is my third foreign language and it surely is not your native language. It's hard to figure out what you want to tell exactly, so maybe I misunderstood you. I have to admit that I don't get your points because you don't elaborate at them in a way that it's clear to understand.

"BSD's is not ok for any situation."

What's okay then? And why is BSD used?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Miss-information"
RE[7]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Ok , so your telling me that in those words : "You are allowed to close the code and switch its license at your own free will is granted by the BSD " , is part of the bsd , no , sorry , they ( those exact word ) dont exist. Your granting yourself right that are not given by the BSD protection clause."

Okay, maybe it's boring, but let me cite from the license file src/COPYRIGHT,v 1.5 2003/12/31 again:

Copyright (C) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
[...]
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


This states 1st that BSD itself is copyrighted by "The FreeBSD Project" and 2nd that 4.4BSD and 4.4NSD-Lite is copyrithted by "The Regents of the University of California".

So lets first recognize who has the copyright on BSD itself. Then, I highlited the terms under which I may redistribute BSD.

Some more about 4.4BSD as the "mother" of FreeBSD:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.


So I may not close the code of FreeBSD and switch it to another license. I may close my code, I also may release it under any license I want. I also may redistribute something that is derived from the original FreeBSD under another license, but the FreeBSD parts stay under BSDL. Example: DragonflyBSD.

"Im from CANADA ..."

Aha.

"If BSD where primarely capitalist , [...]"

I didn't say they were.

"[...] paying to use it the most money possible would be its primary goal. Its primary goal is *Usage*."

Yes, that's correct.

"Witch is defeated by the special right some people have granted themself by closing there derivative and switching license , two actions that are not covered or dare I say permited under the BSD's."

If I developed such a derivative, customers don't pay me for FreeBSD. They pay me for the programs I've written (that run on FreeBSD). Surely you know there are Linux distributions that are commercial. You pay for preconfiguration, documentation and support. Same here. This gets usage share as well. You could even say market share, but that's not true at all because it's not FreeBSD's share, it's effectively mine.

"No , all capitalist care about is making the most money , you can have 5% market share but if people pay more and you make more money then the rest of the other people making up that 95% market share the capitalist want that."

I'm not a capitalist and I don't like them much. :-)

"Look if its not true then port the BSD based software and driver inside Apple and Microsoft and other closed system to all the BSD ... Denying reality lead you nowhere."

I repeat: I may not switch BSD's license. I may switch my license. I may not switch anyone else's license.

For the Apple based software: If they are free (under GPL or BSDL) I could to this. But usually they're not, so I can't. On the other hand, parts of MacOS X are derived from FreeBSD, and Apple sells its OS without opening the sources. The parts that are used are still BSDL, the rest is not.

"No in true science and true academia your not locked in. Now Science and academia have become more commercial this days , but its not really a good thing."

I agree.

"No , language is not the problem and you certainly look like you mastered it enough to grasp what I am talking about."

In some cases I really don't. Don't claim something you can't prove. :-)

"No I elaborate , you just decided that what I say is wrong and false."

No, I don't. I usually try to give hints and proofs to what I'm saying. You don't.

"You take the good side of BSD only , where I speak of its bad side , witch you have decided dont exist and is false."

Then, please be so kind and say explicitely: What are you complaining about? What's bad about the BSDL and BSD itself?

''"What's okay then?"

The GPL.''


As far as I know, the GPL does not allow me to use GPL code in a commercial project. If I derive something from a GPLed program, I have to set my program under the GPL, too. "Transitivity" was mentioned in this discussion, which is more fitting than "viral" (a term that should be avoided). If my program is GPL, I have to give out the source code for anybody else to use. The BSDL does not force me to do this with my source.

''"And why is BSD used?"

Because it exists ...''


Atomic bombs exist, too. Why aren't they used right now?

"If BSD is the best why do you change license to something else ?"

Everything for it's respective purpose.

If I develop something that would be useful for others, I would share it using the BSDL so that others can take advantage from it. But when I develop a special solution for clinical psychology and client data management, I'm sure nobody else would be interested in it. So I hope (!) I'll have the time and attitude to create a product that someone will pay money for. To be honest... I could imagine to free the project if there are enough customers interested in it, so they could download and install the software for free and get the support for a fee... we'll see in the distant future...

Reply Score: 1

Stuff like this always makes me smile!
by SReilly on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:06 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

Frankly I hope this works. The ability for OSS projects to share code, either in source or binary form, can only help both sides.

Linux is already very lucky to have been able to us OpenSSH (you OpenBSD guys kick ass) among many other projects to improve their software stack so I'm sure many Linux hackers would be more than happy for their code to be helpful in exchange.

As somebody once said, every little helps.

Reply Score: 3

Back on Topic
by GinoRotormind on Thu 1st Feb 2007 23:03 UTC
GinoRotormind
Member since:
2006-07-17

I am just curious as to everybodies opinion on whether or not this is actually a good thing. As history tells us emulating other operating system (subcomponents even) tends to reduce the number of native ports. Given that these linux drivers are full of magic numbers etc and the aformentioned constantly volatile linux driver api, how do FreeBSD plan to support these devices should this be merged in FreeBSD 7? Are users on their own? I am all for supporting more devices but wouldn't it be better to take on the more difficult task of writing native drivers that remove the magic numbers etc so that it is properly documented? Doing so benefits the whole community including linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Back on Topic
by Morin on Thu 1st Feb 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "Back on Topic"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

Finally, somebody is back on-topic ;)

As for the magic numbers, many of them have no proper documentation and have a very device-specific meaning. Documenting them is not really a problem of porting the driver, but writing a clean driver in the first place. This would help Linux as much as it would help FreeBSD, but it's going to be a tough job. And it's a particularly uninteresting job if the device is a hardly-known and old one from a hardly-known company that already went out of business.

As for the porting itself, I think its a really bad idea. You can only emulate the OS/driver API properly if there is such an API in the first place. This isn't the case with Linux. I have actually written a kernel module once and I have to classify the kernel as "unstructured spaghetti code" - there simply aren't properly defined interfaces between the different parts.

If you want to emulate that mess in FreeBSD, you have to port half the kernel just to make sure every little bit behaves as intended. If you don't, you'll get headaches again and again for every single driver to be ported. I don't know if FreeBSD has similar code structuring problems, but if it does, a FreeBSD kernel with Linux emulation is going to be an unmaintainable mess that will never work.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Back on Topic
by Vanders on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 08:03 UTC in reply to "Back on Topic"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

This looks similiar to the sort of thing we do on Syllable. Providing an API that is "close enough" to Linux has worked very well for us, at least. We can port things like ethernet and USB drivers very quickly, with the minimum amount of changes and maintain similiar levels of hardware compatability as the original driver.

Tracking the ever-changing Linux API hasn't been too bad. It helps if you're only dealing with a limited number of driver classes, because that obviously limits the size of the APIs you need to concern yourself with. The fundemental APIs (E.g. Stuff like kmalloc()) are very stable, so there are generally no problems there.

Reply Score: 2