Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Jan 2009 00:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Thanks to SGI, a potential disaster for Free software purists has been averted. Back in January 2008, it was discovered by the OpenBSD guys that some of the contributions to X.org and the Mesa 3D Graphics Library made by SGI were covered under permissive open source licenses that didn't fall within FSF's definition of Free software. The FSF Compliance Lab worked with SGI to resolve the issue, and they succeeded.
Order by: Score:
:)
by poundsmack on Thu 8th Jan 2009 00:25 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

Now do you think the OpenBSD guys were the first to find this? or that everyone else who found this just went, "oh man, I am going to keep my mouth shut on this one."

;) either way I am glad that all is well in X.org land, well, at least the licencing aspect ;)

Edited 2009-01-08 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: :)
by ruinevil on Thu 8th Jan 2009 01:04 UTC in reply to ":)"
ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

OpenBSD probably were. No one else is paranoid enough to constantly audit their code like they do. They audit for security, and they audit for licensing.

They appear to be planning to systemically remove GPL code from their base, so they can relicense the entire thing under an ISC license.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: :)
by slougi on Thu 8th Jan 2009 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE: :)"
slougi Member since:
2006-08-16

It has been known for quite a while: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211765

Reply Score: 4

Good stuff!
by obsidian on Thu 8th Jan 2009 00:28 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Good work, OpenBSD guys!

Reply Score: 6

Comment by sbergman27
by sbergman27 on Thu 8th Jan 2009 01:49 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Thanks to SGI, a potential disaster for Free software purists has been averted.
...
Still, there are a few legal loose ends that need to be tied up before GNU/Linux distributions can utilize all the code base in freedom.

To be safe, I suggest that purists turn off their computers until these loose ends are resolved and the spring wave of distros is released. See you in April or May.

Edited 2009-01-08 01:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by sbergman27
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 8th Jan 2009 02:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by sbergman27"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

Reply Score: 5

v Goodbye Microsoft
by ChrisA on Thu 8th Jan 2009 02:16 UTC
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

X.org has always been MIT/BSD licensed, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Reply Score: 3

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

X.org has always been MIT/BSD licensed, so I don't know what you're complaining about.


Noone including him self knows what he's yapping about. He has a problem with the bsd's and really likes to rant about them every chance he gets. The funny part is that you if ask him about sources for his claims he failes to deliever.

Reply Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The funny part is that you if ask him about sources for his claims he failes to deliever.

Well............... X.org is certainly one example. The number one reason why more permissive licenses like MIT, BSD or even the LGPL tend to be used is because of linking to proprietary software. There really isn't any other reason you can come up with. People are certainly free to do that, but the net effect is that developers using your code tend to go off and write their own code somewhere else that could be used to move the project much further forwards. Would we really have the number of drivers we do in the Linux kernel without the GPL?

All you have to do is look around at various 'open source' projects, look at their main licenses and look at how much code is going into them. GPLed projects tend to have quite a bit more code going into them versus their more liberally licensed counterparts, and they, like X.org, are tending to struggle to attract code contributions and long-term contributors. It's a snowball effect.

Reply Score: 4

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

[[The number one reason why more permissive licenses like MIT, BSD or even the LGPL tend to be used is because of linking to proprietary software. There really isn't any other reason you can come up with.]]

There is another reason: compatibility, the more permissive license you use, the less license incompatibility mess there is (GPLv2 isn't even compatible with GPLv3!).

As for the proprietarisation of MIT/BSD code, this doesn't always happen: the OpenBSD and FreeBSD OS seems to have a working ecosystem, sure they're less popular than Linux, but is the license the reason?

It's not possible to isolate the reason: The Hurd was a failure even though it is GPL licensed..

Reply Score: 2

sean Member since:
2005-06-29

GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3.

Only if the GPLv2 license carries the "or later" clause. For example, the Linux kernel does not, therefore, it is not compatible.

The hurd is not a failure , it's not BSD's , people can still develop it.

Huh? Both the BSD's and HURD can still be developed. HURD is not as successful as Linux nor the main BSD OS's.

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Only if the GPLv2 license carries the "or later" clause. For example, the Linux kernel does not, therefore, it is not compatible.


No , otherwise the kernel itself would stop working due to incompatible licensing.

Huh? Both the BSD's and HURD can still be developed.


No , A large amount of BSD derivative are now closed ( as in product with one company supporting them ) and bankrupt and no one can use the code nor the hardware modifications there.

HURD is not as successful


See it's not a failure , if it's not as successful don't mean it had no success accomplishing it's goals.

HURD is not as successful as Linux


Without HURD you don't have Linux ...

nor the main BSD OS's.


No idea what your talking about by "Main BSD OS."

BSD's exist today because in the past they where dependant on the GNU tools that where created due to HURD who's goal was to create real Free Software...

BSD was created with the goald to Free UNIX and replace it with Free software. It is a failure because it failed that goal and Thieve now outnumber the real BSD's.

Reply Score: 0

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

There is another reason: compatibility, the more permissive license you use, the less license incompatibility mess there is

License compatibility is a fairly weak argument for using a license, and it isn't going to make your software better or encourage more contributions.

As for the proprietarisation of MIT/BSD code, this doesn't always happen: the OpenBSD and FreeBSD OS seems to have a working ecosystem, sure they're less popular than Linux, but is the license the reason?

Given that BSD in one form or another has been around for longer than Linux, you'd have to say yes. The GPL makes everyone contributing to the Linux kernel know that they're on a level playing field. If you contribute something then even your competitors need to contribute back if they want to have any influence. This takes any political guesswork out of contributing. Well, most of it anyway.

With a BSD (or more 'liberal') licensed kernel is a hardware manufacturer going to work on open source drivers, or contribute in a big way to major kernel subsystems when a rival can just plug in a proprietary extension and sell that? I very much doubt it. Without the GPL it is very much a "Who is going to blink first?" scenario.

It's not possible to isolate the reason: The Hurd was a failure even though it is GPL licensed..

Hurd has become unnecessary because people were already using something else at its inception and it isn't inherently better in any way to anything else. No license can help you with that.

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Same thing can be said of all the entire BSD/MIT. The code is being used do , but inside proprietary closed code inside commercial , but non-inclusives , non sharing , non contributing back , projects.


I wouldn't use an allquantified expression ("all") here because this sentence can be proven wrong with only one counter-example. :-)

But in principle you're right. The BSD-type licenses are often criticised to be "rape me licenses". This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts. But that's another kind of freedom, if I may see it that way: The freedom to re-use the code in *any* way that's imaginable. Another completely valid point of view is that it may not be acceptable to "unfree" free software, that there has to be a restriction in what you may do with the code in order to protect its freedom.

It's not you , it's me who's obviously the problem , I have this old idea that used to work that Free Sofware was suppose to make Free Software and the FSF support Free Software. Guess I need to adapt to new realities.


Depends on the definition...

Reply Score: 5

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

in order to prove me wrong you would have to provide all closed BSD/Mit code under all MIT/BSD license inside all the closed derivatives who where also relicensed/sublicensed , not the other way around of finding a derivative project who's code is shared and shared back.


Erm... no. Forgive me this introduction to expression logic. You wrote:

"Same thing can be said of all the entire BSD/MIT. The code is being used do , but inside proprietary closed code inside commercial , but non-inclusives , non sharing , non contributing back , projects."

All of them, this is { x1, x2, x3, ..., xn } You claim some statement to be true for all of them in general. So if I find one xi and state that your claim is not true for this one, your whole all-quantified ("for all") statement is false. One exception makes the whole statement false. w(x1, x2, x3, ..., xn) == 1 only if w(x1) == 1 and w(x2) == 1 and ... and w(xn) == 1. This is called a conjunctive expression ("and expression").

This means: If I can name only one single project / piece of software that has been licensed under a BSD or MIT like license that has not been part of a "un-freeing" process (e, g. enclosure in a proprietary product), your statement would been proven wrong.

This could easily be achieved if I write a piece of software, something simple, release it under BSDL, put it on an FTP server and voila, done. It doesn't make sense that this particular piece of software will be "un-freed" within the next 10 minutes. Industry espionage isn't that fast, I hope. :-)

But I think that you said the truth for most of the BSD or MIT licensed software. Many parts of them are found in another "packaging" without any contribution back, without mentioning.

It's like saying slavery don't exist in the world because the majority of people living in CANADA think it don't exist's.


Allthough this is right, your comparison fails to fit the topic. It's true that free software is still "un-freed" in several projects (mostly of proprietary nature), and just because some vendors claim they invented everything on their own, it doesn't become true.

No , it's **code ** slavery, captivity, imprisonment, confinement, restraint , etc.


It's possible to see it that way, but try this approach: If I say: "You may hold me captive and I'll work for you as a slave, this I do grant you by now", could I complain if you put me into the kitchen and let me wash your dishes all day long? Okay, quite a bad example, but you're getting the idea, right? If some software is let to the public with the explicite permission to re-use it in a non-free way, the authors of this software can't complain because they gave this permission. For example, if I don't want my software to be stolen by a big company and then be sold in their products, I won't choose the BSD license.

In real Free Software there is no original and derivative as the derivative is also an original with full rights and privilege.


Yes, I do see this the same way. With any modification, a new original appears with the same rights as its "parent". For example, it's not valid to scrap licensing terms from the source code, or maybe the names and signatures of the original authors, and then put in your own name and sell the whole stuff as your invention.

No it depend on the writer intention and the level of accepted corruption and politics in play.


Politics is for corrupt dummies. :-)

Reply Score: 6

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Your point is not impression logic or logical at all ...


Because it doesnt fit into your logic?


I got that part , but then it's false , it's just as false as it's illogical , you don't redefine logic and rewrite on part of a statement in order to win an argument , you prove it logic or illogic.


So your the only one who are allowed to redefine logic?


Slavery is not an option , BSD's should not be an option where free Software is concerned.


Who cares about "free" software besides fsf nuts like your self?


Your describing copyleft and copyright stealing , neither of witch BSD as or protect in practice , in theory both are there do.


So according to your "logic" copyleft is taking bsd licensed code and call it your own invention?


What's the point of trusting the FSF to make and protect Free software if they end up making open source witch usually lead to closed/proprietary.


Why even trust the fsf in the first place?

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

uh... it's very hard to do a discussion with you because you're mixing up terminology, changing quotes and seem to be not accessible by common sense, allthough your opinion is understandable in parts, and I think I quite share it.

Your point is not impression logic or logical at all ...


Ever hered of expression logic, the science of logic, the treatment of expressions?

w(x1 ^ x2) == 1 «---» w(x1) == 1 ^ w(x2) == 1

Know what's so great about logic? It fits everywhere and is independant from individual opinions. There are many laws in logic that are universal. One of them is the conclusion of a conjunction of arguments. If a collection of statements is claimed to be true at general, but one of the arguments is false, the whole statement (the generalizing one) is false.

A(xi) == 1 «---» xi == 1 Ai


I got that part , but then it's false , it's just as false as it's illogical , you don't redefine logic and rewrite on part of a statement in order to win an argument , you prove it logic or illogic.


You can read about the laws of logic in nearly every introduction class to any kind of science. I'm not redefining anything. It's not about logical or illogical, it's about right or wrong. And if you claim something for all things, but it's not true for one of these things, your claim is wrong. Another point worth mentioning is that if you can't completely define "all" (because software is evolving, there's something new every day so "all" would grow and grow), it becomes significantly harder to proof something for a changing situation.

But you're not proving, you're claiming.

The point is not the existence of a possible exception case , [...]


It is, if it's a valid counter-example which, as I could prove, proves your claim wrong.

[...] it's that all BSD's code end up closed or in closed code.


Why do you say "ends up"? When does it do that? Now? Or in a certain amount of time?

At the moment, there's free BSD code around, such as it is in the various BSD operating systems (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc.). Parallel to this, code from these operating systems exists in closed products, I completely agree with you. But this doesn't make the free code disappear.

In order to prove me as wrong you have to show **all** code ( including derivative , relicensed/sublicensed as in the open and Free software.


No, you would have to show it in order to prove your claim right. You would have to find any piece of code from all the software that has been licensed under BSD, MIT or similar license and compare it to the (still available) free code where it initially came from. Good luck.

Your example is fitting of the limited half-truth and false view taught , you know that this code will probably be based on another one and that this code is already closed in someone else product and/or that eventually someone will use it and close it , hence your 10 min.


Don't assume it. Of course it's valid to see some kind of transition within the code, O -> C -> C' -> C''. But you are the one who would have to unfold every C'' code and reveal that is is, in any kind, based upon O code.


My comparison don't fail to fit the topic.


Yes it does, and you know it. It proves you're wrong. (See what I did? I assumed and implied and argumented the same way you usually seem to do.)

Yes you could complain it would also be illegal as slavery is illegal even if the slave agreed to it.


No. If I give explicite permission for somebody to do something, I can not complain. The BSD license says in principle that it's okay to take the code and do anything to it, without the obligation to contribute anything back. Well, that may be seen as a "rape me license", but if the originators of the code are comfortable with this setting, it's their right to do so.

Coming back to the example. Your objection that something (here: slavery) is to be considered illegal doesn't change the principle that if something is permitted, it's okay to do so. (Aside this, I don't want to say that slavery is legal and okay, just in case you don't getting this.) Maybe the intentions of "rapers" (of source code) is worth having a look at. Big companies stealing ideas and code and selling the stuff "they invented" is bad, and it's bad for the authors of the original source code or the inventors of the ideas. So if you simply don't want such case ob "abuse", better not release your code under BSDL / MIT or something similar.

So if I don't want you to have me wash dishes all day long, I'd better don't give you my permission to use my labour force for free.

You see, my example wasa not that bad at all. :-)

" If some software is let to ... choose the BSD license. "

Slavery is not an option , BSD's should not be an option where free Software is concerned.


Hey, stop this!!! Stop cutting out significant parts of my statement to turn them into something opposite. This is impolite and and furthermore it doesn't make sense in any discussion.

As I could read from your statements, you consider BSD like licenses to enslave code. Do you think code in itself has rights, or would you say the authors of the code have rights? Using free code to create closed products is, in my opinion, a break of the rights the original authors have (they get it by creating the code), except, of course, they explicitely permit it.


Your describing copyleft and copyright stealing , neither of witch BSD as or protect in practice , in theory both are there do.


Sorry, I'm unable to understand the meaning of these words...


No politics is for everyone and affect everyone.


Seen the ":-)"? Of course you're right. But the access to decisions is very limited for "everyone", and common interest doesn't seem to grow on this topic. Maybe we will regret this some day...

What's the point of trusting the FSF to make and protect Free software if they end up making open source witch usually lead to closed/proprietary.


Hmm... a valid point of view. Internationally differing law makes the situation more complicated. But as I mentioned before, next to the closed / proprietary software the free one still will exist. Just because someone sells a product based upon OpenBSD doesn't make OpenBSD go away, as an example.

Reply Score: 6

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

This means: If I can name only one single project / piece of software that has been licensed under a BSD or MIT like license that has not been part of a "un-freeing" process (e, g. enclosure in a proprietary product), your statement would been proven wrong.

Errr, as much as I think Moulinneuf ties himself in knots and doesn't express himself well, this is wrong on two levels:

1. This is an English language discussion and arguing about logic over one word is off on a massive tangent that is totally orthogonal to the main discussion. If you argue like this in real life then you have other 'issues'.

2. Your logic is flawed in this case with your fixation on the use of one word. The fact that some code in any BSD licensed project has not been used in a closed off proprietary piece of software does not preclude and rule out its use in one in the future - and that applies to *all* such licensed projects. That's the point. Vaguely arguing otherwise is fruitless in this 'discussion' as it is what the license in question allows and not what people have or have not decided to do with the code.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts.


I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft.

Let's say I put a bunch of junk out on the curb and put up a "Free for the taking" sign. Then let's say someone takes me up on the offer, fixes up some of the junk, and sells it for a profit. Would I have any valid reason to view that as "theft" and get upset? Or would that be my own damn fault for not choosing more restrictive terms in the first place?

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Something similar would be to put a lawnmower on your lawn put a sign "free for usage , can upgrade it if you like , use your own gas."


Your analogy is already hopelessly-flawed before the end of your first sentence (and I use "sentence" in the loosest possible sense). I'll try to spell it out clearly enough that even you should be able to follow.

You've described a situation where the original owner/author is deprived of their property in violation of the terms under which they made that property available. That's not comparable to using BSD-licensed code without contributing changes back to the author.

I have a pony , I put a sign you can use it and change the saddle if you want , since your StephenBeDoper the thief you take the horse and claim it as your own because you renamed it " Puffy my only love " and brought it to your cave.


Wow. Just... wow. Even after 10 years on Usenet, that has to be the most laughably-inept attempt at an insult that I have ever read. Congratulations, you have managed to surpass even the knuckle-draggers of rec.sports.pro-wrestling and the gas-huffing inhabitants of alt.pizza.delivery.drivers.

Oh, and since I'm nice guy, here's a free lesson in 6th grade-level English.

Your = an adjective indicating possession.
You're = a contraction of the words "you" and "are."

Hope this helps!

Reply Score: 2

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"Something similar would be to put a lawnmower on your lawn put a sign "free for usage , can upgrade it if you like , use your own gas."

Then you have StephenBeDoper the Thief come along and claim it as is property because he painted it blue and upgraded the motor and put in expensive gas in it.

You try to get it back to mowe your lawn and he say I can rent it to you , or you can buy it from me or you can't use it.
"

Inherently flawed. In the case of BSD licensed code, taking it, improving it and making it poprietary does not deprive the original author of his original code. You know this. You are being intellectually dishonest* and it is sickening.

*or just dumb. Less sickening, but sad

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts.


I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft.
"

Yes, I agree with that. In maximum case, it could be seen as immoral to profit from other ones work.

Let's say I put a bunch of junk out on the curb and put up a "Free for the taking" sign. Then let's say someone takes me up on the offer, fixes up some of the junk, and sells it for a profit. Would I have any valid reason to view that as "theft" and get upset? Or would that be my own damn fault for not choosing more restrictive terms in the first place?


Completely correct, but you don't want to compare BSDL code to junk, do you? :-) In fact, the source code is something people had worked on, put their time and labour force into it. But coming back to your analogy, maybe you built some electronics on yourself when you got some money as a present (time + labour force + donations), and then consider the the electronics, defective or not, to be junk and to be taken up by anyone, well, that won't be a situation of theft.

The term theft could eventually be applied to "intellectual property"... maybe.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"[q]This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts.


I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft.
"

Yes, I agree with that. In maximum case, it could be seen as immoral to profit from other ones work. [/q]

I think it hinges on whether or not one views the upstream contribution of changes as an obligation.

Personally, I see it as something that's desirable (rather than requisite) and certainly should be done whenever possible. But I don't see it as immoral to use software in a way that is clearly-permitted by the license under which the software is released.

It's an odd situation when we have overzealous GPL advocates, like Moulinneuf, raising a hue and cry about proprietary use of BSD code - when it apparently doesn't bother the actual authors of said code. It seems like some sort of bizarre martyr complex-by-proxy.

[q]Let's say I put a bunch of junk out on the curb and put up a "Free for the taking" sign. Then let's say someone takes me up on the offer, fixes up some of the junk, and sells it for a profit. Would I have any valid reason to view that as "theft" and get upset? Or would that be my own damn fault for not choosing more restrictive terms in the first place?


Completely correct, but you don't want to compare BSDL code to junk, do you? :-)


True enough, wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that everyone in Canada is as vitriolic as Moulinneuf ;)

In fact, the source code is something people had worked on, put their time and labour force into it. But coming back to your analogy, maybe you built some electronics on yourself when you got some money as a present (time + labour force + donations), and then consider the the electronics, defective or not, to be junk and to be taken up by anyone, well, that won't be a situation of theft.


Looking back, my analogy probably would have worked better if it had referred to blueprints / schematics for physical devices (rather than tangible physical objects).

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Man, that was downright offensive.

Even if everything you said was true, you are comparing using a free software project without contributing back to killing children. I knew free software nuts got zealous sometimes, but that is just twisted.

Reply Score: 4

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Guess I need to adapt to new realities.


Perish the thought! I can't imagine how anyone would get the idea that you aren't terribly well-acquainted with reality.

...

On a totally unrelated topic, please tell us more about how using the BSD license is comparable to killing children.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't have your pony ...


You know, I honestly can't tell if you're just feigning ignorance - or if you truly are that obtuse.

If it *is* willful ignorance, then I must applaud your persistence (if nothing else).

"tell us more about how using the BSD license is comparable to killing children."

Your words not mine ...


Of course those aren't your words. They're not nearly rambling or long-winded enough and they aren't riddled with spelling & grammatical errors.

Reply Score: 5

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I still don't have your pony.


Don't worry, you evidently have plenty of hobby-horses to make up for it.

BTW, if "hobby-horse" is too-obscure a reference for you, please feel free to go into your "jilted teenage girl" act again (you know, where you follow me around for a week and obsessively reply to my every post).

Ignorance would make me agree with you , willfull ignorance would make me be you.


You know, you could have just written "I know you are, but what am I?" - it wouldn't be any less-laughable

Those aren't my words , because it is you who wrote them.


...are you trying out an impression of Randy from My Name is Earl, or just demonstrating your ability to grasp of the obvious?

Spelling is done verbally ,


Uh... so you dictate all your posts letter-by-letter? Or do you mean that you're hookid on fonix?

ramblings would have me writing like you as for long winded , thanks.


In the words of Samuel L. Jackson:

"ENGLISH, MOTHERF****R - DO. YOU. SPEAK. IT?!?!?"

Hope this helps!

Reply Score: 3

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

No, Moulinneuf, your words.


*** There is nothing wrong with the Free Software Foundation celebrating making open source licensing. ***

*** There is nothing wronmg with banker and banks who are closing or asking for baillouts because they fraudulantly spent other's people money ***

*** There is no problem with milk producer who distribute poisonned milk into there products , other people childrens dying is not a problem ***


You directly compare "There is nothing wrong with the Free Software Foundation celebrating making open source licensing." with "There is no problem with milk producer who distribute poisonned milk into there products , other people childrens dying is not a problem"

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Not a good thing when Moulinneuf notices a BSD article.

Reply Score: 6

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Moulinneuf,

Although I prefer a GPL* license, because, after all, if someone use code I wrote and intent to sell/distribute it they must give the "improvements" back, I would ask you to refrain to be so critical about BSD/MIT like licenses, even if just to show respect to the developers that expended their time and had a high commendable attitude to publish their code for free.

Also, we don't know the reasons the developers had to choose a particular license, but I suppose they did after a careful analysis of the other options. You, probably, don't think that big projects just pick a license from random, right?

Reply Score: 3

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I second that. I prefer the GPL license as well, but if someone wants to code in BSD then there is nothing wrong with that. Your arguments are divisive for no reason that I can see, other than wanting to attract attention.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The BSDs are older than GNU\Linux, and lots of stuff used in Linux comes from BSD, like OpenSSH and OpenSSL.

The BSDs use their own CLI tools, their own kernel, their own filesystem (though it can use others.)

XFree86 and Xorg is originally derived from code that ran on UNIX, and almost all unix like OSs use it, so they didn't steal that.

I fail to see how they are thieves.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

But BSD does use their own CLI userland.

And just because they allow unfettered sharing themselves do not make them thieves themselves. That's like assuming people who donate food to the foodbank steal food.

Edited 2009-01-09 15:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

BSD stands for Berkley Software Distribution, it COMES FROM BERKLEY, so does Sun Microsystems. It does not use Unix code, it use to, but all UNIX code was removed for 386BSD. Do your research.

Linux has also been accused of stealing UNIX's code, and there is no evidence of that either. Do you really think that just because you say it, it makes it true?

If you don't like the license, that's fine, but in my opinion, it's more free than the GPL. Calling people thieves when they are not is wrong, but you do it all the time. What other people do with BSD licensed code is not their responsibility, But the BSDs themselves don't steal code, there is no UNIX code in BSD anymore, and that's that.

I refuse to continue this thread, you're making my head hurt.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Saying there is no UNIX code in BSD is a lie. "

No. I may be incorrect (but I am not)
There is no more UNIX(illegal) code in BSD then there is in Linux. If you have proof, PROVE IT.

Otherwise, just stop. You're just making yourself look bad.

Reply Score: 2

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Seriously, you need help. Anyone who knows the history of the BSD's knows that BSD developers contributied large volumes code to improve AT&T Unix. When an issue came up in court & code was removed, the remaining codebase from BSD 4.4-lite is what was determined to belong to BSD. This is what the court determined. Therefore, by legal definition, it's not stolen. The court declared BSD the owner of the codebase in BSD 4.4-lite. This is the codebase that all modern BSD's are based off of. More things have come out of BSD & used in other systems, than vice versa. Hell, almost every OS alive is using a derivative of the BSD networking stack. Most modern *Nix derivatives are using XWindow servers that originated with BSD/MIT licenses. These things were around before GPL, LGPL, & some of the other licenses. So, who's stealing from who???

Reply Score: 1

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Nice rewrite of history there.

But Then you won't have any trouble finding "the Judge and his judgment and what the court determined" and providing a copy/link here , to support your lies.

Your only problem is it was *settled* due to a third party who is the owner. That same owner faced SCO and lost who decided to claim ownership like BSD is doing now had trouble with.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

BSD's from other's.




"USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in the United States in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to UNIX. The case was settled out of court in 1993 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with USL and BSDi agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), which would later develop into a range of BSD distributions, each tuned to its own specific audience's strengths and markets."

Now, if you'll notice, the judge didn't think that USL had any rights to the property. Basically, USL didn't have a leg to stand on as far as court cases go. So, USL settled out of court, which was basically the only logical choice. As a result of the settlement, the remaining code that was released as BSD-4.4-lite is wholly the property of BSDi. This has been argued & settled. Legally, the code wasn't stolen. If the code wasn't stolen, then there were no thieves there.

There's no doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. The history of ALL of the BSD branches are common knowledge. Also, BSD has it's own toolchain for code development. The GNU toolchain is mostly provided to allow the use & development of Linux apps. Now, where's your proof???

Reply Score: 3

sean Member since:
2005-06-29

" That's like assuming people who donate food to the foodbank steal food.


NO it's saying that all BSD's are accomplice in stealing all the food given to the foddbanks when their thieves want to make a profit a the expanse of the food banks and not share anything back by rebranding or repackaging the product given to the foddbanks.

" [/q]

The BSD's give to all as much as the others want. If you want to use food as an example--I think tangible item comparisons do not work with code, imagine that the BSD's are a source of infinite food. Yes, others can rebrand and/or repackage it. However, consumers do not have to partake of this; they can get their food for free.

Reply Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the problem *imagination* , in reality BSD is finite in it's ressources , just like a foodbanks is.

Reply Score: 0

You are a nutcase...
by tomcat on Fri 9th Jan 2009 02:32 UTC in reply to "Not a good thing when BSD thieve celebrate"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Seriously, there's something very wrong with you. Seek treatment immediately, and get on some meds.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: You are a nutcase...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 9th Jan 2009 13:00 UTC in reply to "You are a nutcase..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

When the BSD's celebrate what the FSF does that means that the FSF did not do a really good job and let in all the BSD thieves.

Although I am partial to copyleft licenses, in general, I also respect the members of our FOSS community who prefer more permissive licensing, or whose situation makes a more permissive license a more logical choice for them. And I must say that I find the irony of a GPL advocate using the word "thieves" in connection with the BSD community to be beyond my ability to adequately express.

And isn't that post against the OSNews ToS or something? It seems to me that many (most) of Moulinneuf's posts are of questionable intent and value.

Edited 2009-01-10 02:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

I also respect the members of our FOSS community


FOSS means Free and Open Source Software , some people have a tendancy to forget the meaning of those words. Like you just did. But then you don't see the insult in saying people who close BSD's to all other but themself are part of a community who try to free and Open Source code.

who prefer more permissive licensing


I read that as prefer to invent new *lying* terminology that sound like they are calling closing code more permissive then letting people use , modify , resale , study it.

more faster then fast ...
more taller then tall ...
more darker then dark ...

More permissive then permissive , but with closing as an acceptable option in a Free and Open Source Software solution ... It make no sense to any sane person.

whose situation


Is of there own doing ...

And I must say that I find the irony of a GPL advocate using the word "thieves" in connection with the BSD community to be beyond my ability to adequately express.


Too bad you don't have word or what's that thing , oh yes reality and more importantly proof , to back up your insinuation , fabulations and lies that GPL people stole anyone codes. Even more from BSD's ...

Because then that would have been taken to court , since you can't defeat us in code and in action and that we have the moral high ground due to our action , we must be according to people like you smeared in names calling and take it without any reply at all time , well I guess for every zealots , drug insinuation , you need to see a shrink , and other loathing , I must accept and say thanks ? Because it's my so called religion according to people like you ...

The funny thing is my comment was well within the TOS and acceptable , to the extreme surely , but then I unleashed the flury of insult that is often the tolerated breakage of said TOS when I am the author of a comment and of name calling for saying what I know is right.

BTW this post was written as a real BSD user's and real BSD advocate , you know the old kind that had this utopia of freeing UNIX. What can I say your limited views and false concept can only mention what it knows.
That all who disagree with BSD thieves must absolutely be GNU or GPL something.

I hate to break up the obvious to you but the moderator/editor/owner may not like me that much , they may not like my tone and a lot of the words I use , but they generally don't disagree with the general idea behind what I express. Also when they really disagree I have never seen them be mute about it , or not act upon it.

This will be my last post under this article.

Reply Score: 0

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

"
And I must say that I find the irony of a GPL advocate using the word "thieves" in connection with the BSD community to be beyond my ability to adequately express.
Too bad you don't have word or what's that thing , oh yes reality and more importantly proof , to back up your insinuation , fabulations and lies that GPL people stole anyone codes. Even more from BSD's ... "

Because BSD code allows itself to be taken and used, many GPL projects have ended up "stealing" it. What seems to happen is that a piece of BSD code ends up in a GPL project and acquires improvements. All those improvements are under the GPL unless specifically noted, and the code becomes effectively impossible to bring back to the BSD project.

This is no different from BSD code being "stolen" into proprietary, hidden code, but it is more dangerous to the BSD original. It is dangerous because the improved GPL version is open source, it would be very easy to argue "derivative work" contamination if those GPL'ed improvements appeared back in the original BSD code base, even if rewritten.

I believe it is quite rude to not give improvements back to an open source project under the original license. I believe it is especially rude if you are distributing the code under another open source license. I believe it is extra especially rude and hypocritical when the new open source license would explicitly prohibit doing the same thing with its own code.

Many code authors agree with me and when this sort of thing happens by accident and is discovered, the patches are often recontributed by their author to the original BSD code.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Because BSD code allows itself to be taken and used, many GPL projects have ended up "stealing" it. What seems to happen is that a piece of BSD code ends up in a GPL project and acquires improvements.......This is no different from BSD code being "stolen"

I'm afraid it is different, because it is the BSD license that says that you can do that and not the GPL.

I believe it is quite rude to not give improvements back to an open source project under the original license.

How do you propose that is done if you have a license like various BSD ones that say that you don't have to? There is only one way to compel source code improvements to go back into a project (it's highly, highly, highly ironic that you are arguing that by the way), and that is to use a license like the GPL otherwise it is tough luck.

I believe it is especially rude if you are distributing the code under another open source license.

Once again, that's not the GPL's problem. The BSD licenses effectively say that that can occur.

Many code authors agree with me...

Do they? Who?

....and when this sort of thing happens by accident and is discovered, the patches are often recontributed by their author to the original BSD code.

Yer. What's the problem?

Reply Score: 2

Okay...
by Lazarus on Fri 9th Jan 2009 18:50 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Arguing with Moulinneuf is pointless. He is too deeply embedded in his delusions to ever accept reality as we know it, and will blather on endlessly spouting the same crap he's written for years, with insults and name calling to further inflate his posts and possibly his ego.

He will NEVER accept any insights you have regardless of how many links to cold hard facts you provide to back up your position. Furthermore he will twist the meaning of words if not out-right assign new meanings to them whenever it suits him, leaving readers even more perplexed as they wonder how someone could have the brain capacity to bang out what look like sentences, yet never really make any kind of sense.

Please, stop responding to him. Mod him down whenever he posts, and hope that someone with some power here will finally get so completely annoyed with him that he will be outright banned.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Okay...
by Doc Pain on Fri 9th Jan 2009 23:08 UTC in reply to "Okay... "
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Arguing with Moulinneuf is pointless.


There's a reason why most of his comments got voted down. It's not ignorance or arbitraryness. Even if you agree with him, he disagrees (even if he really has a point), just as it would be a reflex reaction... :-(

Reply Score: 2