Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 26th Mar 2002 20:24 UTC, submitted by Jean-Baptiste Queru
Syllable, AtheOS Bill Hayden did the obvious: He forked AtheOS (which is technically similar to BeOS) and used its app_server and Interface Kit (without the use of X11) and rest of its kits on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel. While the AtheOS kernel has some very nice features, by being modular, semi-microkernel, with good preemptive/multithreading support etc., it lacks a solid VM and swap support and of course, it lacks a good driver support, things that the Linux kernel provides. Bill Hayden accounced his fork on the AtheOS mailing list and made known that the "Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API, there is PowerPC support, gcc 3.0.X compatiblity and OpenTracker/Deskbar as the desktop manager".
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
about the GPL
by P_Developer on Fri 29th Mar 2002 12:56 UTC

It may be political, but the contagious nature of the GPL is what worries developers who have to earn a living from their code. That's why BSDish licenses are much better - use the code, no questions asked. If you're that worried about you code being ripped off, then you really don't understand the altruistic basis to open source. While it is fine to wave the GPL flag it ultimately prevents the software being used in ways which could improve its overall quality.

For example, I could download atheos, make a lot of suggestions and patches based on my experience and submit these to make a better OS. I can't however do so because I am in the process of building an OS of my own, and if I started poking through the code, this would likely violate the clean room principles which I'm trying to adhere to. With a BSD license, I don't face such a risk.

The GPL suits developers who haven't got much to start with. It really doesn't suit skilled developers who have much to risk from code contamination.

Given these arguments, projects under the GPL may be unlikely to attract highly skilled developers, such projects are likely to fall into mediocrity with regard to quality.

I am sure you can blow my argument apart, but could this be one reason why GPL'ed projects take longer to reach the standard that closed or BSDish projects reach?

So I add this... GPL is a selfish license, BSD is a selfless license. Since the founding principle of open source is supposedly sharing source in an unselfish manner, the GPL would then seem to be somewhat of an anomaly, almost hypocritical.

I personally would be much happier to contribute to a BSDish project than a GPLish project for these reasons. Go think about it.

P