FreeBSD developer Scott Long said on Thursday that the next version of the open source BSD-based operating system, planned for release in September, includes support for
“a lot more” wireless cards and for wireless security standards such as the Wi-Fi Protected Access.
FreeBSD for the win.
Moulenfool … here’s your cue to go off about how BSD devs are “thiefs and liars”.
Please… The troll is away, so do not call and feed him.
Regarding the article :
“the guy at FreeBSD who is adding wireless support is under contract from wireless companies to do the work”
Well, let us hope the drivers will be free (as in free speech). The OpenBSD developers already tried to deal with wireless device vendors and it was a real PITA for them to obtain anything (like documentation) without being bound to a NDA.
“The troll is away”
Learn what a troll is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
“let us hope the drivers will be free (as in free speech)”
All the BSD’s are not even Free as in free speech , your asking people who dont care about others to share there improvments when they use a traitor license that dont allow it for very long to think about other projects ?
“FreeBSD for the win.”
There only going to support 1/100 of what GNU/Linux support already.
“Moulenfool …”
My name is Moulinneuf , you still have a problem with copy paste on your OS , *respect* is something you cant understand.
“here’s your cue to go off about how BSD devs are “thiefs and liars”.”
Its a proven fact , They use a protection clause and call it a license and they take original Open Source and Free Software and make them derivative closed source and single proprietary.
– Moulinneuf
You are an idiot, ha HA-ha HA-ha HA-ha, HA-ha HA-ha HA-haaaa …
It’s like that Flash animation. They’re talking about you Mloeunineuf.
A lot of news on that interview, such as:
> The project will also launch a redesigned Web site in
> conjunction with its 6.0 release.
On the FreeBSD topic,
I also read in the mailing lists that portsnap will be moved from ports to the *base* system.
Even if 6.0 will be released at mid-end of september, I don’t think we will see it in base for 6.0 though.
Portsnap is already imported in RELENG_6, so it will be in 6.0-RELEASE
Even if 6.0 will be released at mid-end of september, I don’t think we will see it in base for 6.0 though.
Actually, it’s already in the RELENG_6 for about a four days so it will be in the 6.0R.
What the hell are you talking about Mallouf.
How are BSDs not free?
You should just ignore him, rather than egg him on. If you want to have this discussion I can find you an old article to engage in this off-topic nonsense.
What the hell are you talking about Mallouf.
How are BSDs not free?
let us just forget him.
personally i can’t wait for 6.0R – going to install the same day when it comes out. i will actually upgrade from 5.3
go FreeBSD!
Since you asked :
BSD’s are a protection clause and nothing more that got elevated to the status of License by ignorant people who have been continuing this lie since its creation.
The BSD’s offer nor right and no protection what so ever exept for the maker of the software not to get sued in case of the use of the software breaking something , but people since its creation have been claiming rights for themself that dont exist and are not written in the protection clause :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
– The right to make legally and freely a copy.
– The right to modify the code
– the right to resale the code aquired from someone else
etc …
All rights that have been falsely claimed but which are not mentionned in this Protection clause.
I am also one who is in Disagreement with both the definition of Open Source and of The Free Software fondation the body who are certifying software as such , the fact that the words “at all time” are not included permits that *traitor* license to the cause of Open Source and Free Software are certified as full Open Source and full free software , this allow anyone by design to take an original bsd’s software and switch it to a singular proprietary and closed source license.
I call thief all those who use the BSD’s protection clause and use it to close the code source and keep it only for themself , the best example of that are Microsoft , Apple and Unix all use BSD’S software and are not giving anything back.
BTW my name is not Mallouf , its not a nickname its my real name I would aprreciate if you where mature enough not to play with it like a child. You got a function on all OS called copy paste , please use it.
– Moulinneuf
I just love this Google Summer of Code thing. It encourages young talent to pursue ambitious projects and become interested in free software development, helps free software projects, and it’s a great way for Google to locate and attract the best and the brightest. The FreeBSD installer is just one of many reasons why we all benefit from Google’s program. I’m sure that the success of SOC this year will justify continuing this program for years to come.
Another frustrated troll…
I’m using ver. 6.0 since months now. The only thing I can say is :”It’s BSD. It’s stable, fast, simple and free.” What else could you ask ?
Keep up the good work.
Honestly, quit trolling, BSD is plenty free. Absolute freedom. If you don’t want to risk someone using your code commercially don’t use BSD license, but it is perfectly valid open source.
And I happen to love the fact that Apple used BSD for the wonderful OSX. My PowerBook and everything about it was worth the money, I’m sorry you can’t find value in commercial offerings as well as free open source ones.
“Honestly”
Learn before missusing this word there is nothing honest about you *anonymous*.
“quit trolling”
Learn what a troll is
“BSD is plenty free”
No , and its supposed to be entirely free.
“Absolute freedom.”
Learn what freedom is , its not enslavement.
“If you don’t want to risk someone using your code commercially don’t use BSD license”
Even better take all BSD’s code and make it GPL and enforce it under the GPL.
“but it is perfectly valid open source.”
No , personnaly I say that with keeping in mind the traitor effect of the license which allow by design the closing of source code and removal of use exept for one individual.
“And I happen to love the fact that Apple used BSD for the wonderful OSX”
It show the strenght of the Open source BSD developper that a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code , too bad for the license.
“My PowerBook and everything about it was worth the money”
Your money your choice. I agree powerbook are well designed notebook for there price.
“I’m sorry you can’t find value in commercial offerings as well as free open source ones.”
This reply show right there that you dont have a clue what your talking about , or know me , commercial offering and Free and Open Source can co exist , Just look at Mandriva , Just Look at Red Hat , Just Look at Novell/SUSE who finally got it now.
– Moulinneuf
Will this release be marked as the stable branch?
“I am also one who is in Disagreement with both the definition of Open Source and of The Free Software fondation the body who are certifying software as such , the fact that the words “at all time” are not included permits that *traitor* license to the cause of Open Source and Free Software are certified as full Open Source and full free software , this allow anyone by design to take an original bsd’s software and switch it to a singular proprietary and closed source license.
I call thief all those who use the BSD’s protection clause and use it to close the code source and keep it only for themself , the best example of that are Microsoft , Apple and Unix all use BSD’S software and are not giving anything back. ”
———————————————————————- —————————-
So your objection is with the companies who take the code and release it under a different license. The *BSD code is available for download. As for Apple; they have release most of their source code to the public (Darwin). The only aspect that they haven’t released (that I am aware of) is thier GUI.
On Jul 12 2005 Darwin 8.2 was released; download here:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
FYI: You haven’t mentioned Sun. Sun’s origins are based on *BSD code, until they bought the rights to Sys V. Now keep in mind, Sun released Solaris (non BSD code) and Star Office. Some companies do give back (not all).
As for MS: I have no comment.
“So your objection is with the companies who take the code and release it under a different license.”
No with the Definition of Open Source and Free Software who allow the full certification because the wording whas not including but implying only “at all time” so that original and derivative have to be Open Source and Free Software to be certified as such.
“The *BSD code is available for download.”
Not all of it. Most derivative are not.
“As for Apple; they have release most of their source code to the public (Darwin).”
Its not even funny that people make such lies , Darwin is not most of the Apple code which whas closed , its only what Apple feel like releasing.
“The only aspect that they haven’t released (that I am aware of) is thier GUI.”
You falsely believe that your excused because you spit lies base on your lack of accurate information ? No.
“FYI: You haven’t mentioned Sun. Sun’s origins are based on *BSD code”
SUN is Unix. And yes probably there is BSD’s closed code in Sun too. There is on almost every OS.
“Sun released Solaris (non BSD code) and Star Office. Some companies do give back (not all). ”
There suppose to give all the code back thats what Open Source and Free Software is all about. Not just what they feel like.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html
“However,
*** because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X ***
, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system.”
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html
SUN is Unix. And yes probably there is BSD’s closed code in Sun too. There is on almost every OS.
Lol, you can’t even get your facts right. SunOS (later called Solaris) was originally based on BSD, and then later included SYSV code. Not the other way around.
Also, SVR4 includes BSD code. The files that include it are detailed in the Regents of Berkely and USL settlement agreement.
So SunOS/Solaris definately includes BSD code.
“you can’t even get your facts right”
No , Sun Microsystems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems
Acquired Some UNIX OS , some UNIX technology and some UNIX license and whas created by a Primary BSD developper ( Bill Joy )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Joy
, they did so legally and bought what they used and acquired. They did not use the Open Source and Free Software license traitor effect Like Apple and Microsoft did.
Thats why I dont mention SUN. Yes they use BSD code , they just did not took it from free and open source and closed it like the others.
FYI: You haven’t mentioned Sun. Sun’s origins are based on *BSD code, until they bought the rights to Sys V.
Bought rights to use SYSV, not bought the rights to SYSV. These still lie with Novell or SCO (currently under dispute).
Even better take all BSD’s code and make it GPL and enforce it under the GPL.
what a wicked idea! it is the worst idea i have ever heard. i can say. EVEN MORE BETTER take all GPL’s code and make it BSD and enforce it under the BSD.
It show the strenght of the Open source BSD developper that a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code , too bad for the license.
i’ve been known for quite some time that BSD license even encourage commercial vendors to use BSD code in any way they want. i don’t think that that ‘a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code’ is ‘too bad for the license’. it is encouraging! BSD license actually benefit the world!
“EVEN MORE BETTER take all GPL’s code and make it BSD and enforce it under the BSD. ”
Cant do that with the GPL , its not a traitor license 😉 , unless your the only programmer on the code then you can Dual license it. The GPL version stay anyway.
“that BSD license even encourage commercial vendors to use BSD code in any way they want.”
There is no such thing as a BSD’s license its a protection clause falsely called a license and it dont mention anything about commercial vendor encouragement of the use of those software.
“i don’t think that that ‘a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code’ is ‘too bad for the license’. it is encouraging!”
The intent behind the protection clause never whas to stop development and close code or even allow it.
“BSD license actually benefit the world!”
No , otherwise everyone would be using it , only those who can afford it , do so. I know you dont get it but stopping improvment and closing source code is a bad thing for everyone and the entire world.
“Cant do that with the GPL , its not a traitor license”
Traitor in wich way ? Well, we’re talking about freedom , right ? If you’re able to read and to understand then you can read BSD licence and if you don’t like, you’re FREE not to use it.
If someone decide to do some work and to leave everybody use his work for FREE, where’s the problem ?
“Traitor in wich way ?”
Closing of source code to all but a few and closing useage of the code to only those who pay or are in inside your company or group.
“Well, we’re talking about freedom , right ?”
Yes and no , my principle and value come from freedom and truth , but I whas talking so far about the License and the Definition used to certify it as Open source and as Free Software.
“If you’re able to read and to understand then you can read BSD licence and if you don’t like,”
BSD’s are not license there protection clauses. From this one can conclude your the one with reading troubles.
“you’re FREE not to use it.”
I am actually Free to switch all BSD’S claused code to The GPL license its a possibility availaible.
“If someone decide to do some work and to leave everybody use his work for FREE”
Its not the kind of people I have a problem with.
” where’s the problem ?”
When other people take that work offered for free and close it , thats bad.
Why are Wifi driver closed and unavailaible for all platform ? Because someone took the open Standard wich is under a traitor license and closed it and built there product with the new closed driver wich are 99% open standards.
– Moulinneuf
> Why are Wifi driver closed and unavailaible for all platform ? Because someone took the open Standard wich is under a traitor license and closed it and built there product with the new closed driver wich are 99% open standards.
Nein.
That is because some developers (including Linux developers) accepted to sign NDAs, so when other developers (especially the OpenBSD developers) asked WiFi vendors for documentation, they received this kind of response : “Well, all other developers are signing NDAs with us, so there is no reason you cannot do the same.”
Wifi started as an open Standards. Some vendors released there code ( linksys ) under the GPL or LGPL , and the other driver where made by reverse engineering and testings. Some company also paid to have made Linux driver by there employee.
OpenBSD developper are not entittled to anything , they use the traitor license BSD’s , there the one who created , accept and also defend this mess.
Live by the sword die by the sword.
-Moulinneuf
“No with the Definition of Open Source and Free Software who allow the full certification because the wording whas not including but implying only “at all time” so that original and derivative have to be Open Source and Free Software to be certified as such.”
This would be your definition of Open Source. Sorry to disappoint you; the world does not revolve around your beliefs. There are many versions of Open Source Licenses and they suit a variety of needs. Have you ever read the LGPL?
———————————————————————- —————————–
“The *BSD code is available for download.”
Not all of it. Most derivative are not.
Some parts of code may belong to other vendors. For example some of the code in Solaris could not be released; because it came from some other company.
———————————————————————- —————————–
“As for Apple; they have release most of their source code to the public (Darwin).”
Its not even funny that people make such lies , Darwin is not most of the Apple code which whas closed , its only what Apple feel like releasing.
Which part is a lie? What didn’t Apple release. OS X is part *bsd and part Mach 3.0 (Mach was also based on *bsd). They took an OS and released an OS.
———————————————————————- ————————–
“You falsely believe that your excused because you spit lies base on your lack of accurate information ?”
No need to call someone a liar. I lie is intentional; and I can assure you, there is no intent to spread dis-information.
———————————————————————- ————————–
“There suppose to give all the code back thats what Open Source and Free Software is all about. Not just what they feel like. ”
This is your belief; not everyone subscribes to your understandign of opensource. Now, a notable programmer and opensource advocate has a slight different opinion (Eric S. Raymond). FYI: This would be the same person who wrote “The Cathedral & the Bazaar”
Please read the interview:
ESR: “We Don’t Need the GPL Anymore”
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html
Now, when you engineer your own programs, you can feel free to choose you license agreement (GPL, BSD, MIT, et al).
———————————————————————- ——————————
*** because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X ***
, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system.”
True, but Apple did not take Coca or Cabron from “ANY” Open Source Project (that I am aware of). This would be Apples own unique creation. Please feel free to correct me, if Apple has taken the code from some other OSS project to create: Coca or Carbon.
“This would be your definition of Open Source.”
No , I dont ever claim to define what Open source is , it existed long before I whas born.
” Sorry to disappoint you; the world does not revolve around your beliefs. ”
Its not a belief , its a reality of history , I just saw a gap in the definition and I know where it leads , and am hoping it will be closed.
“There are many versions of Open Source Licenses and they suit a variety of needs.”
Yes , I am not discussing Licenses but the Definition and why I say it needs a change The definition used for certification ).
” Have you ever read the LGPL? ”
Yes.
“Some parts of code may belong to other vendors.”
I will agree with you on that , but I also include Apple code they are choosing not to release.
” For example some of the code in Solaris could not be released; because it came from some other company.”
Thats also a problem , not telling who is doing what , some other company have names.
“Which part is a lie?”
Most of.
“What didn’t Apple release. ”
Entire OS X.
“OS X is part *bsd and part Mach 3.0 (Mach was also based on *bsd).”
There is more to it.
“They took an OS and released an OS.”
Your going to simplisticly to make your point acceptable for me. OS X is FAR more then what Darwin is.
“No need to call someone a liar. ”
Actually , in this particular case there is.
” lie is intentional; and I can assure you, there is no intent to spread dis-information. ”
The reply is mis-informed , is dis-information and is known to be false by the author.
“This is your belief”
No , thats hwat Open Source is.
“not everyone subscribes to your understandign of opensource.”
Its not open to discussion. Open Source have the source code availaible at all time. Thats the most basic principle of Open Source.
“Now, a notable programmer and opensource advocate has a slight different opinion (Eric S. Raymond). ”
No , he as a politicaly motivated answer that differ from mine. He is for Open Source when it suit is needs.
“This would be the same person who wrote “The Cathedral & the Bazaar” ”
This would be the guy behind the creation of the body ( with Bruce perens ) Open Source Initiative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
and of the guy responsible for the definition behing worded wrong today.
“ESR: “We Don’t Need the GPL Anymore” ”
I dont hold ESR opinion in much esteem. He tends to be proven wrong over time , all the time.
“Now, … al).”
Now , if I whant to really examplify the BSD traitor effect I can switch all BSD’S software to the GPL and from then on enforce it.
” True, but Apple did not take Coca or Cabron from “ANY” Open Source Project ”
Its used as an example ,its not the only code and :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_(API)
“Cocoa is derived from the NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP programming environments developed by NeXT in the late 1980s.”
“This would be Apples own unique creation.”
No everything come from something else which come from something else which come from something Open Source.
” Please feel free to correct me, if Apple has taken the code from some other OSS project to create: Coca or Carbon.”
I did and they did , but its legal due to the traitor license. Acceptable and correct NO , but legal.
Why are Wifi driver closed and unavailaible for all platform ? Because someone took the open Standard wich is under a traitor license and closed it and built there product with the new closed driver wich are 99% open standards.
Because in some countries it’s the law. You can’t distribute the frequency changing parts of the code as source. That’s why the Atheros driver, on all platforms I’ve seen, comes with a binary HAL. It isn’t because of the wicked, closed source fairy stealing away the code. It’s because of various goverment authorities in charge of radio band contention.
Good point!
That is because the FCC does not like the idea of people playing around with software-defined radios, too.
This will change soon, hopefully.
“Because in some countries it’s the law.”
No , thats a pathetic made up excuse btw , how would many developper get access to the source then ? why do they ask for it if they cant modify it …
WIFI started as OPEN standards.
“That’s why the Atheros driver, on all platforms I’ve seen, comes with a binary HAL.”
OpenBSD has a completely open Atheros driver, including HAL, written by Reyk Floeter.
OpenBSD has a completely open Atheros driver, including HAL, written by Reyk Floeter.
Fair enough, I haven’t used OpenBSD so I wasn’t aware of this effort. I still maintain though that the binary HAL thing is definitely the NIC manufacturers trying to cover themselves from a legal perspective.
There’s quite a few manufacturers who are open with their API’s. Interestingly enough it appears the Taiwanese ones are much more open than their U.S counterparts.
I just got the point. If some one is saying something like :”I am not stuborn , when proven wrong I will admit to it , it dont happen very often.” and just after :”BSD guarantee freedom for the user ? Your delusionnal and a liar and a thief by association.” the only thing I can say to that person is to check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness . It’s apparently useless to argue with someone who’s not able to take in consideration other opinions.
So people, please, don’t let us mess up this place, it’s not supposed to be a Troll’s kingdom !
I take it into consideration , I aint a very polite person anyway , I just entirely refute it based on actual fact and real history thats is accurate today.
” Have you ever read the LGPL? ”
Yes.
“Some parts of code may belong to other vendors.”
I will agree with you on that , but I also include Apple code they are choosing not to release.
” For example some of the code in Solaris could not be released; because it came from some other company.”
Thats also a problem , not telling who is doing what , some other company have names.
———————————————————————- ——————————–
You may be barking up the wrong tree (old US expression). Are you aware that the Linux kernel has binary drivers? Its probably best that you start at the top of the list. Have you contacted Linus? Or any of the devlopers? Have you contacted Intel?
You have a big job ahead of you. I think that its best; that you get to the bottom of this Non-Free Conspiracy. Snap too it.
Regards
“You may be barking up the wrong tree (old US expression).”
Nothing came from the US …
“Are you aware that the Linux kernel has binary drivers?”
No , module binary driver , yes.
“Its probably best that you start at the top of the list.”
Its probably best I dont listen to you at all.
“Have you contacted Linus?”
Nope.
“Or any of the devlopers?”
I spoke with some kernel developper on occasion yes.
“Have you contacted Intel?”
Yes , but not on that mather.
“You have a big job ahead of you.”
Not really , its just time that is needed.
“I think that its best; that you get to the bottom of this Non-Free Conspiracy. Snap too it.”
If there not free and not Open Source how can the Kernel driver work on it ? I know your just lying and having fun in your own way , because you dont know better , but your a dangerous idiot in the long run.
– Moulinneuf
Mleoneifnueff you are a nuuuuuuugget.
Really. However … let’s back on to an old question that you never actually answered …
List (specifically) which parts of OS X Apple borrowed from an open-source project and have not released the source code for. Also explain what your justification is for believing that they should release the source for things like Aqua, iTunes, and Quartz Extreme. Where did they take those from?
Take it to IRC/AIM/ICQ/MSN/Slashdot. The two of you crap on every single article related to FreeBSD. Stop.
japail ,
You need to raise your threshold reading at 0 , you see
the preference button <<< —– that way , press on it
go to : Comments scored below this number are hidden from your default view. change it.
I am sorry that the information I give in reply to there lies is annoying you.
“List (specifically) which parts of OS X Apple borrowed from an open-source project and have not released the source code for. ”
The entire OS is from Open Source …
“Also explain what your justification is for believing that they should release the source for things like Aqua, iTunes, and Quartz Extreme. Where did they take those from?”
Open source.
I already ll answered that before.
windows 98 is better
“but your a dangerous idiot in the long run.”
———————————————————————- ——————————
You never answered the question, what part of OS X did Apple take that wasn’t given back.
You acknowledge that there are closed source binaries (with respect to the kernel) and have no real response. Yet you choose to make deragatory comments about an OS that is Open.
Perhaps you should start with closed source that exists with in the kernel before branching out. Your spreading your nuttieness too thin (kind of like peanut butter).
Seek some professional help
“You never answered the question”
I actually did , numerous time.
“what part of OS X did Apple take that wasn’t given back.”
All of it is Open Source , for it to be acceptable they have to contribute ALL back. Cant be clear enough then that. It ALL came from Open Source even the improvment (what some call derivative).
“You acknowledge that there are closed source binaries ”
No , i never acknowledged your lies or agreed with it, I said modules , which mean modules attached to it. there not needed for the kernel to function there are in use in special case and with some hardware.
“and have no real response.”
I actuualy gave you a real answer , you just dont like what I said and are twisting it to fit your goal ( insult me and prrove me as wrong ).
“Yet you choose to make deragatory comments”
I dont make deragatory comments , its an accurate observation of over 30 year of use and existance of all BSD project.
“about an OS that is Open.”
Yes , I could go for Open , its just not Open source and not Free Software.
“Perhaps you should start with closed source that exists with in the kernel before branching out. ”
There not in the kernel there attached to it. Perhaps I whont listen to a liar who as no name and who as nothing accurate and of value at all to say and continue to show that BSD’s are not license but a protection clause and that they are not real Open Source and are not real Free Software , wait I already do that.
“Your spreading your nuttieness too thin ”
I happen to be right on this and accurate too.
“(kind of like peanut butter). ”
I guess you have a problem with peanut butter too …
“Seek some professional help”
I see a shrink every week among other professional due to my job and because its a requiremnent for one of my job. What about you ?
– Moulinneuf
actually no
it is perfectly acceptable, legal and ethical to take open source use it and not contribute ANYTHING back.
there is no requirement to give back when you were given something without that obligation.
if it was expected to be given back, that should have been part of the license.
” to take open source use it and not contribute ANYTHING back. ”
Open source means the source code is Open at all time both the original and derivative , dont even have to give away the derivative but once you paid for it you must get the source code too , thats what Open Source really is , otherwise its a traitor license passing itself off as Open Source.
– Moulinneuf
> Open source means the source code is Open at all time both the original and derivative , dont even have to give away the derivative but once you paid for it you must get the source code too , thats what Open Source really is , otherwise its a traitor license passing itself off as Open Source.
You definitely have a weird definition for the word ‘open’. Is an open bottle of wine a bottle that is open at all time and that can not be closed, too ?
Actually, his definition is even weirder. The code would be “Open” and “Free” only if it forces some *other* code, written by *other* people, to be disclosed as well (that is what GPL dictates).
Seems to me that this idea of “freedom” is much closer to socialism than to liberalism. I know the GPL creators deny it, but it really looks like that (to me, at least).
With academic licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache) you can do whatever the heck you want with the code, as long as you give proper credits. This is much closer to my idea of freedom.
“The code would be “Open” and “Free” ”
I am talking about *Open Source* and *Free Software*. Not Open and Free , your not even discussing that either , your discussing , How the GPL is not understood at all by you and how far and low you can go to show it as a bad choice.
Whats always funny is that , for you protection and defense of Software Source code and availibility and equals right for everyone is second to your *claim* at a not existent given right of doing what you whant and primarily your not existant and not given right to close the source code and its availaibility in derivatives.
Care to show me in the Protection clauses and License you discuss where closing the source code in derivatives is given as a right :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
Its not , but your obviously claiming it as a right.
“With academic licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache) you can do whatever the heck you want with the code”
No , but because they are traitor license used by thiefs with some invented rights that where claimed. Traitor because no one said : its not allowed or given as a right. Then the reality is thief are allowed to make the rules.
“this is much closer to my idea of freedom.”
You have no idea what Freedom means , Freedoms come from equals rights and the defense of those rights by other freedom people.
Freedom for me is not the availibitlity to take freedom and things from others without permission from other as I see fit , its not either to put anyone else or myself in a cage.
– Moulinneuf
“I am talking about *Open Source* and *Free Software*.”
No, you’re talking about *your* definiton of Open Source and Free Software, not the commonly accepted definiton of them.
“Freedom for me is not the availibitlity to take freedom and things from others without permission from other as I see fit , its not either to put anyone else or myself in a cage.”
You’re not taking anything with the BSD license, you are using a copy of something someone else made. Taking would mean the removal of something from the original user but clearly that’s not the case here.
“No, you’re talking about *your* definiton of Open Source and Free Software ”
No , not at all , I am talking about the real definition of those terms not about the definition for certification which whas politicaly motivated in its making and modification by the body doing the certifications, I dont claim to have coined the terms Open Source and Free Software they existed long before the creation of the certifications body , I just know there real meanings and its not to allow the creation and propagation of more closed source software and of proprietary software its quite the oppposite.
“You’re not taking anything with the BSD license,”
There is no BSD’ license , only Protection clause. ( no rights are given hence they are not license )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License
“A license (American English) or licence (Commonwealth English) is a document or agreement >>>giving<<< permission to do something.”
“you are using a copy of something someone else made.”
In Open Source there is no copy , you have access to the Source code at all time Original and derivative and are allowed to modify it as you see fit.
“Taking would mean the removal of something ”
The removal of access to source code wich is a fundamental right of Open Source is always forgotten by those who claim themself non existant rights.
“from the original user”
Lets also not forget about the derivative user and developper ( those who are not thiefs and traitors ) unlike what your suggesting and doing.
“but clearly that’s not the case here.”
Whats clear is that Open Source is now Closed source and free Software is now Proprietary software when traitors and thief claims themself non existant rights and no one is there to protect or reclaim them.
When the code is truely Open Source and trueley Free Software it can be used on any platform and on any hardware all you need is some recompiling , no one can stop you from using it changing it and modifying it as those right are clearly >>>given<<< to you by the license.
– Moulinneuf
look at me!! I’m Moulinneuf the monkey!! *makes monkey noises*
“You definitely have a weird definition for the word ‘open'”
I am not talking about Open , you are , I am only stating perfectly and very clearly what Open Source is for software and what its suppose to mean.
“Is an open bottle of wine a bottle that is open at all time and that can not be closed, too ?”
An open bottle of wine is not Open Source and is not software at all.
Geez, every time! I am so sick and tired of this. Everytime there is a FreeBSD post, the comments almost always end up about the bsd/gpl license debate.
If you don’t reply to Moulinneuf then there won’t be an argument. Just ignore him and mod down his comments.
Just a friendly request please guys/gals.
Thanks.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=11606&comment_id=20137
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=11606&comment_id=20171
– Moulinneuf
“If you don’t reply to Moulinneuf then there won’t be an argument. Just ignore him and mod down his comments.”
Yes, please lets.
People, you cant win an argument with him. He’s just like a spoiled little child yearning for attention and no matter what you say he wont admit being wrong.
Ladys and gentlemen! We are witnessing the evolution of the English language, right before our very eyes!
Long have incorporated words from other languages into our own, and right here on OSNews we witness the assimilation of another.
From this day forward, “Moulinneuf” shall be English for “stubborn retard.”
Don’t be a Moulinneuf
🙂
This man deserves all of your mod points.
Wireless device manufacturers may prefer to use FreeBSD rather than the rival open source operating system, Linux, because of features such as its support for fine-grained access controls and security policies, according to Long.
This is utterly rediculous. Why mention Linux in a FreeBSD article?
Linux has a implementation of fine-grained POSIX access controls, and it has multiple implementations of advanced security policies.
Why would he even imply this is a unique feature of FreeBSD, beats me. Why he wouldn’t mention the laisser faire liscense of FreeBSD as a potential advantage for wireless driver development, versus the GPL, is beyond me.