“We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary.”
‘BSD – The Dark Horse of Open Source’
132 Comments
2007-01-16 4:43 pm
segedunum
The BSD license is superior in every way and primarily for 2 reasons:
1) Simplicity
2) Far less need to legislate to enforce
But alas, not one of the BSDs has reached the usage or critical mass that Linux has, primarily due to the license used. The GPL compels companies and people to put their code back into the kernel, which then snowballs the whole project along. There is no inequality.
An awful lot of people want to pretend that all that is religious fanaticism, but the fact is that Linus’ choice for a license that would dictate that is simple, straightforward and everyone knows where they stand.
The people and companies who pretend that the GPL is complicated are those who simply want to use other peoples’ code or create their own closed world for their own benefits – which incidentally, doesn’t help any of the BSD projects in any way.
Edited 2007-01-16 16:50
-
2007-01-16 4:50 pm
Oliver>But alas, not one of the BSDs has reached the usage or critical mass that Linux has,
Because of,
>Why isn’t BSD better known?
For a number of reasons, BSD is relatively unknown:
1. The BSD developers are often more interested in polishing their code than marketing it.
2. Much of Linux’s popularity is due to factors external to the Linux projects, such as the press, and to companies formed to provide Linux services. Until recently, the open source BSDs had no such proponents.
3. BSD developers tend to be more experienced than Linux developers, and have less interest in making the system easy to use. Newcomers tend to feel more comfortable with Linux.
4. In 1992, AT&T sued BSDI, the vendor of BSD/386, alleging that the product contained AT&T-copyrighted code. The case was settled out of court in 1994, but the spectre of the litigation continues to haunt people. As recently as March 2000 an article published on the web claimed that the court case had been “recently settled”.
One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the 1980s, BSD was known as “BSD UNIX”. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX. Thus you will see references in book titles to “the 4.3BSD UNIX operating system” and “the 4.4BSD operating system”
5. There is a perception that the BSD projects are fragmented and belligerent. The Wall Street Journal recently spoke of “balkanization” of the BSD projects. Like the law suit, this perception bases mainly on ancient history.
http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html
-
segedunum
Because of,
Because of that fact that more code has gone into Linux on a wide variety of things than has gone into any BSD kernel.
The BSD developers are often more interested in polishing their code than marketing it.
Polishing their code for what purpose, exactly? And Linux developers don’t polish their code as much? (Which is utterly meaningless by the way)
Much of Linux’s popularity is due to factors external to the Linux projects, such as the press, and to companies formed to provide Linux services.
And why did Linux get more press with more companies forming around it? You simply haven’t explained why that became the case.
Because when people contributed code to Linux, there was no ifs or buts about creating closed or differently licensed extensions (and gave people little incentive to do so since it wasn’t possible), that code gradually improved the quality and functionality of Linux which in turn attracted companies and more developers and press attention increased as a result.
It’s been a major factor in the code within the Linux kernel remaining open sourced and remaining together as a coherent whole, as well as various userspace projects as well. Without that you get fragmentation and a lack of coherance.
Until recently, the open source BSDs had no such proponents.
They still don’t.
BSD developers tend to be more experienced than Linux developers
There’s simply no evidence for that whatsoever, and again, it doesn’t explain why more code has gone into Linux than any BSD for all kinds of hardware and purposes.
and have less interest in making the system easy to use.
I don’t see any Linux system being necessarily more easy to use than any BSD system. The only reason why Linux is perhaps easier to use, and works, in some ways is because that’s where most of the code goes. Guess why……..
In 1992, AT&T sued BSDI, the vendor of BSD/386, alleging that the product contained AT&T-copyrighted code. The case was settled out of court in 1994
It still doesn’t explain why more code has flowed into Linux.
in the 1980s, BSD was known as “BSD UNIX”. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX.
I don’t follow. Linux isn’t UNIX either. How does that mean that less is contributed to any BSD OS?
There is a perception that the BSD projects are fragmented and belligerent. The Wall Street Journal recently spoke of “balkanization” of the BSD projects.
And it has that perception even when it has a primary license that allows the closed source drivers and proprietary development some people believe are so important? Go figure.
The Linux community has that perception as well, and again, it still doesn’t explain why more code continues to flow into Linux and projects that are written for Linux first.
-
2007-01-16 11:29 pm
CloudyThere’s simply no evidence for that whatsoever, and again, it doesn’t explain why more code has gone into Linux than any BSD for all kinds of hardware and purposes.
Quantity is not quality. “More code” is not the same as “better system.”
It still doesn’t explain why more code has flowed into Linux.
It has nothing to do with the respective licenses and everything to do with the nature of the developer communities.
Linux Torvalds is a likeable guy who deliberately put together a system of participation that encouraged less experienced developers to become part of the process and thereby grow into better developers. LKML, Linux janitors, and a bunch of other initiatives have made developing for Linux attractive.
The BSD developers are less egalitarian and more interested in having a tighter focus on what they do.
Neither approach is better or worse than the other, but they lead to very different dynamics and that has nothing to do with the licensing approach.
Had the BSDI suit been settled earlier, Linus would, he says, have forked a BSD distro and gone from there. He’d have lived with the BSD license and BSD development, at least in his variant, would be just as Linux development is now.
-
2007-01-16 11:01 pm
macisaacyou forgot 6:
Linux has a cute cuddly penguin mascot, and who couldn’t love penguins??? BSD has mascots ranging from the devil, a bug, a flag, and a spiky fish who might be into bondage…
-
2007-01-17 10:22 am
yak8998I don’t really lean one way or another on this topic, just had to chime in though:
“2. Much of Linux’s popularity is due to factors external to the Linux projects, such as the press, and to companies formed to provide Linux services. Until recently, the open source BSDs had no such proponents.”
That is a horrendous argument. You are contradicting yourself if anything. Linux didn’t start out as some sort of astroturfing concept. You’re more or less saying Linux is successful because people payed attention to it. Must be a reason for that. (again, not leaning towards either side, but that paragraph shot down half your argument.)
-
Cloudy
But alas, not one of the BSDs has reached the usage or critical mass that Linux has, primarily due to the license used.
OS/X, which is BSD derived, has roughly the same market share as all of the Linux distros combined.
-
segedunum
OS/X, which is BSD derived, has roughly the same market share as all of the Linux distros combined.
Which means what to anyone? It’s simply not BSD, and Apple just doesn’t care that they use BSD code nor do they give a damn about it. Can you run OS X applications on any BSD derived OS? Errrrr, no. No point whatsoever.
Some women just don’t want to be told that they are being used. Just the way the world is I suppose.
-
Cloudy
OS/X, which is BSD derived, has roughly the same market share as all of the Linux distros combined.
Which means what to anyone? It’s simply not BSD, and Apple just doesn’t care that they use BSD code nor do they give a damn about it. Can you run OS X applications on any BSD derived OS? Errrrr, no. No point whatsoever.
It means that arguments about licenses based on market share are silly, because the market share of Linux is tiny.
Some women just don’t want to be told that they are being used. Just the way the world is I suppose.
and some enjoy the use. tastes differ.
-
segedunum
It means that arguments about licenses based on market share are silly, because the market share of Linux is tiny.
OS X is not BSD in any way shape or form – Apple just lifted a proportion of code and modified large parts of it for themselves. Is there some part of that that wasn’t clear?
Trying to somehow claim that Linux’s share is small when compared with BSD because BSD code has been lifted and shoehorned into various other operating systems that will never contribute anything back is just plain laughable, but that’s what many BSD proponents try to claim sadly.
-
2007-01-16 8:41 pm
openwookierying to somehow claim that Linux’s share is small when compared with BSD because BSD code has been lifted and shoehorned into various other operating systems that will never contribute anything back is just plain laughable, but that’s what many BSD proponents try to claim sadly.
It’s only sad from a ‘linux’ point of view. The whole myth about the GPL is that it encourages a huge amount of source code feedback, which keeps things improving. It’s true to a certain extent, but really the vast majority of the code is produced by a core team (just like the BSDs).
The BSD point of view is that they have *better* code than anyone else, and it *should* be shoehorned into other projects, to make those projects better. Contributions back from these other OS’s isn’t really needed (unless it’s something minor, like a fix for a device driver).
Really, it’s just a difference of ideologies.
-
segedunum
It’s only sad from a ‘linux’ point of view.
No it’s just plain sad, but if BSD people are OK with it then fine.
The whole myth about the GPL is that it encourages a huge amount of source code feedback
It’s simply not a myth. The fact is that the integrity of the Linux kernel, or any GPL licensed or open sourced project, has to be maintained if it is to survive or get anywhere. That code feedback is built into the license, and ensures people and companies contribute fairly. One developer’s contributions will be matched by others.
It’s true to a certain extent, but really the vast majority of the code is produced by a core team
A core team that has to abide by the rules, along with countless contributions from other interested parties using Linux who share their contributions and get contributions in return from others. Those other interested parties would probably have just created closed extensions or drivers in a BSD OS, making the many people less willing to contribute as a result.
It works.
The BSD point of view is that they have *better* code than anyone else
Well, there’s no evidence for that.
and it *should* be shoehorned into other projects, to make those projects better.
I’ve read that a thousand times on BSD mailing lists, and honestly, I just find it to be an excuse to justify the historical licensing decisions of the past.
-
Cloudy
OS X is not BSD in any way shape or form – Apple just lifted a proportion of code and modified large parts of it for themselves. Is there some part of that that wasn’t clear?
That part where it matters to the discussion.
Trying to somehow claim that Linux’s share is small when compared with BSD because BSD code has been lifted and shoehorned into various other operating systems that will never contribute anything back is just plain laughable, but that’s what many BSD proponents try to claim sadly.
The Linux kernel is a small part of a “Linux” system. Linux systems tend to be licensed under a wide range of licenses, and only a portion of the code is licensed via GPL.
The point is that it is silly to base arguments about the effectiveness of licenses on ‘market share.’
You don’t seem to realize that behind your backlash against BSD, you’re supporting that point.
-
segedunum
That part where it matters to the discussion.
There is no part of what you mentioned that is relevant to any discussion. OS X simply isn’t BSD, nor is it even remotely related, and trying to claim it as some market share win for BSD via OS X versus Linux as you’re trying to do is just daft.
The Linux kernel is a small part of a “Linux” system. Linux systems tend to be licensed under a wide range of licenses
A large proportion of it is licensed under the GPL, and the kernel being the core of it is pretty important. Getting your hardware to run is pretty fundamental, and the GPL has been a huge part in keeping it together.
No one has the motivation to work much on a BSD kernel because they’ve not sure if their contributions will be matched by others, or whether others will simply attach their own binary only extensions or simply take the code and run. That underlying suspicion has held back any BSD.
The point is that it is silly to base arguments about the effectiveness of licenses on ‘market share.’
You don’t seem to realize that behind your backlash against BSD, you’re supporting that point.
You were the one talking about Linux market share being small, so I’m not entirely sure what knots you’re tying yourself into. You were also trying to take that further by implying that OS X using BSD code has some bearing on any of the BSDs market share – which it simply doesn’t.
Besides, it’s not a backlash against BSD. It’s simply the truth. If BSD people are OK with that then there’s no reason to get upset. They are simply not using a license that makes enough people confident about contributing on a level playing field in an open source project. That word source, and what gets done with it, is pretty important.
-
Cloudy
No one has the motivation to work much on a BSD kernel because they’ve not sure if their contributions will be matched by others, or whether others will simply attach their own binary only extensions or simply take the code and run. That underlying suspicion has held back any BSD.
It is naive to think that the only motivation for working on a piece of code is that someone else will also work on it later.
There are many reasons, and many of us do it simply because we happen to like that particular piece of code or the other people who are working on it.
I know a lot of Linux developers, and none of them have the sort of motivation you suggest. They are interested in doing “something cool” or being part of a big thing, or working on a particular technology that they’re found of, or any of the dozens of other reasons why any of us work on freeware. But not one of them has once said to me “you know, I could never work on BSD because of the license.” In fact, I’d say I know a two dozen people who work on both BSD and Linux.
The relative popularity of the two has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the personalities of the people behind them.
-
segedunum
It is naive to think that the only motivation for working on a piece of code is that someone else will also work on it later.
I’m not doubting it. It is, however, largely true though. Most developers are motivated by contributing on a level playing field, and a handful aren’t. Fair enough to them. However, some of BSD proponents still don’t want to believe that the license simply holds them back. That’s a fact.
But not one of them has once said to me “you know, I could never work on BSD because of the license.” In fact, I’d say I know a two dozen people who work on both BSD and Linux.
Which is why, to this day, there persists a strong will by many Linux developers to prevent, or at least make life difficult for, any kernel module which violates the GPL or taints the kernel, or anything that might allow it. Some of the methods they have come up with won’t work, but that motivation is there, because they see how the project works.
The vast majority of developers involved with Linux recognise that the level playing field is what makes it work. If you lose that then you lose the project, the code contributed to it and the momentum of development.
The relative popularity of the two has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the personalities of the people behind them.
The license is a big factor in the difference between relative popularity, as more code simply flows into Linux. People and companies are compelled to contribute code, and they feel OK aout doing it because other developers, companies and even competitors have to do likewise. It’s a level playing field, and it’s a huge factor, no matter how many people pretend that the GPL is too complicated.
If you can tell me why that would work with regards to a BSD oriented project, then I’m all ears. The simple fact is that cannot work there. Any companies who got involved would be creating closed source drivers, weakening the rest of the project, from the get-go. They can’t do that with Linux – it all has to go back in, making others and their competitors feel OK about contributing.
You’ve simply done nothing to disprove that other than skirt around the actual issues for half a dozen comments. Saying the license doesn’t matter with regard to the various BSDs’ popularity half a dozen times doesn’t make it true, because there is ample evidence to the contrary. See above.
Edited 2007-01-17 23:17
-
Cloudy
Saying the license does matter without any evidence doesn’t prove anything.
As I said, I know a lot of developers and I’ve never met one that cares about this “level playing field” you imagine.
I sure such folks exist, but statisticaly they are in the minority.
As to the personalities, anyone who knows either Kirk McKusick or Theo DeRaat and also knows Linus Torvalds knows that the personality issues matter far more than the license issue.
By the way, you haven’t offered evidence, you’ve just restated your opinion in several different ways.
There are plenty of popular well done projects that don’t use the GPL, such as Apache, but do have large developer communities. So the reason can’t be “level playing field.”
-
2007-01-16 11:44 pm
nevaliOS X is not BSD in any way shape or form – Apple just lifted a proportion of code and modified large parts of it for themselves. Is there some part of that that wasn’t clear?
XNU itself is made up of a Mach-based microkernel combined with a kernel-space BSD support layer, one which bears more than a passing resemblance to LITES, as well as FreeBSD.
You can’t say ‘they lifted a proportion of code’ and in the same breath say ‘is not BSD in any way shape or form’: the two are completely mutually exclusive. If it wasn’t BSD in any way, it wouldn’t contain any BSD code: it does contain BSD code—rather a lot of it, in fact. To say that it’s categorically ‘not BSD’ is a little like saying that Solaris isn’t System V, and I’m not sure anybody’s about to claim that.
Edited 2007-01-16 23:45
-
2007-01-16 6:10 pm
MoulinneufOS/X is License: APSL and Apple EULA not BSD.
I am interested in what you discuss as market share , I know your wrong and are mixing market income with market share. But I want to confirm what your discussing first. If its your usual lyes and nonsense I am not interested.
Just so you know BSD’s are bigger then Mac OS X in market share , its market income that they have a problem with. We know how small all BSD’s are vs GNU/Linux.
-
2007-01-16 6:30 pm
hamster“Just so you know BSD’s are bigger then Mac OS X in market share , its market income that they have a problem with. We know how small all BSD’s are vs GNU/Linux.”
Your point being? You claiming that the licens is better because more people are using a super hyped up OS? Take a look at Windos then… Their EULA must be the way to go then.
-
Moulinneuf
Depends on what your goal is. If lying and destroying BSD is your goal , yes Microsoft Eula and attacking GNU/Linux is the way to go. Its sure going to bring BSD downfall.
If you want BSD to thrive , you need to realize that Microsoft and Apple are using the BSD license to remove market income and market share directly from BSD without any compensation or contribution to it.
If as you suggest Microsoft is the way to go , then why are you not following your own advice ?
-
openwookie
you need to realize that Microsoft and Apple are using the BSD license to remove market income and market share directly from BSD
What evidence do you have of this?
Do you really think that web server admins are moving their systems from FreeBSD to OS X because they share some driver code and common utilities?
Or that network admins are trading in their OpenBSD firewalls for Microsoft ISA server, due to the fact that MS borrowed code for their Services for UNIX product?
I don’t think so.
-
Moulinneuf
“What evidence do you have of this?”
Reality … Apple , Microsoft , BSD
“Do you really think … common utilities? ”
They (Apple) don’t share anything , thats the point FreeBSD share , Apple take all tolerated but illegal under BSD but none enforce the license , there is nothing at all in BSD that say your allowed to take the code improve it and switch license.
Thats the main difference between real Open Source and Shared source and Free Software with Shared software.
“Or that network … Services for UNIX product? ”
Borrowed means your going to give it back …
“I don’t think so.”
You don’t think at all , your showing , but failing , Microsoft and Apple as Good people , there not , when they clearly took market share and more importantly market income without contribution or any form of compensation to BSD.
Let me clarify it for you :
Microsoft billions USD
Apple Billion USD
BSD’s almost nothing left because Apple and Microsoft took market share and income from them …
How is that helping BSD’s ?
-
2007-01-16 9:52 pm
arielbBSD the OS or bsd as an example of a non copyleft license? Because the BSD OS isn’t even trying to compete with windows or apple for user marketshare.
I don’t think linux is trying either…
-
Moulinneuf
No , the BSD protection clause , what you call a license , and don’t give me the copy-left argument , BSD is copy-left equal to GNU/Linux, its when people switch license that copy-left disappear.
-
-
-
arielb
it’s very important to avoid the problems mentioned in
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination…
people expect those codecs even if they want the rest of the OS to be open source.
-
Moulinneuf
Ok , avoid World Domination 201 and avoid Eric Steven Raymond. No problem unless you mention it/him , its something I avoid anyway.
As to do with VA Linux Systems , the OSI and all the GPL attack he as made.
-
arielb
you can avoid esr but you can’t avoid the problem of codecs and closed source drivers that a lot of people want
-
Moulinneuf
“you can avoid esr ”
Well that would be nice , but he ain’t dead yet ( not that I wish im actual harm ) and is said to be working on Freespire , so , no he still as tie to GNU/Linux so I am bound to hear about is latest Open Source nonsense.
“but you can’t avoid the problem of codecs ”
There is no problem with codecs. There is a problem with some people who don’t know how to install codecs and some people who think codec are gratis. And the FUD.
Codecs exist for GNU/Linux or they don’t.
“closed source drivers that a lot of people want”
No one *want* closed source driver , they want there device and peripheral to work as intended , the blame for the lack of driver is put on GNU/Linux when its the hardware vendor who don’t provide the drivers or the spec to be able to make them or even the hardware to test and try to make one.
Closed source driver exist for GNU/Linux or they don’t.
That’s ESR problem he take iPod ( apple proprietary MP3 players ) and blame GNU/Linux for it not working perfectly on GNU/Linux … The Device was never made to work on GNU/Linux , will doing so dissing all the MP3 player that work on GNU/Linux out of the box …
-
arielb
ok there’s a problem. it’s hard to install *anything* on linux but that has nothing to do with license.
if the codecs and drivers are available and are the best for the job then they should be default instead of making users have to dig and look on their own…for the “Cause”
-
Moulinneuf
“ok there’s a problem.”
Not at all.
” it’s hard to install *anything* on linux but that has nothing to do with license. ”
Not true. You don’t even to install anything with Live-CD … or with default loaded systems. You can even pay people to install software and things just like for other OS. If the default Live-CD is not to your taste you can pay people to make one to your taste.
“if the codecs and drivers are available”
Then they are available , buts its often the real problem , they are not available.
” and are the best for the job ”
Use them …
“then they should be default”
No , as its illegal to distribute closed source anything with Free software. Users can easily install them , but they cant be made legally default.
“instead of making users have to dig and look on their own.”
No one is making users do anything , if the users is incompetent and try an install without locating the driver first , he is entirely to blame , its the same on all OS.
“for the “Cause” ”
What cause ? Your installing GNU/Linux , if you know what your doing it will work if you don’t get a class , don’t blame GNU/Linux because you don’t know how to install and locate drivers if your that much of an incompetent pay someone to do it for you. See problem solved entirely.
If your hardware is not compatible and need to buy a new computer :
Better yet use BSD or something else …
The real problem is the same as with driver , I have zero say over the GPL , same with driver , you want to argue it , get a lawyer and face the FSF and the GPL in court.
-
arielb
“No , as its illegal to distribute closed source anything with Free software. Users can easily install them , but they cant be made legally default. ”
who makes it illegal? looks like GPL is making it illegal, not them.
I say screw the FSF lawyers and get them off my pc! Screw them and screw Microsoft, which is happy because the FSF makes them look like angels in comparison.
Edited 2007-01-17 04:38
-
Moulinneuf
Yes and thats why the GPL and FSF win all the time , you say that in your house … Its meaningless as a real challenge.
-
openwookie
they clearly took market share and more importantly market income without contribution or any form of compensation to BSD.
Let me clarify it for you :
Microsoft billions USD
Apple Billion USD
BSD’s almost nothing left because Apple and Microsoft took market share and income from them …
Moulinneuf, you are full of sh*t.
The BSDs are hobbyist systems. They have never had billions of income or marketshare to take ….
The BSDs encourage companies and individuals to *use their code*. While donations of money and code are welcomed, they ARE NOT REQUIRED.
-
2007-01-16 10:25 pm
Don T. Bothers“The BSDs are hobbyist systems. ”
The BSDs have never been nor will ever be just hobbyist systems. What they are is free “enterprise-class” operating systems. While they have never made money, they have allowed many, many companies to make large fortunes from them. Today, you can go ask Juniper, NetApp, Nokia, Yahoo, Inktomi, Apple, and a host of other companies if the BSDs are hobbyist. Yesterday, you could have asked Next, Sun, Digital, etc.
-
hamster
“Depends on what your goal is. If lying and destroying BSD is your goal , yes Microsoft Eula and attacking GNU/Linux is the way to go. Its sure going to bring BSD downfall. ”
What i don’t understand is how attacking linux will bring *bsd down.
“If you want BSD to thrive , you need to realize that Microsoft and Apple are using the BSD license to remove market income and market share directly from BSD without any compensation or contribution to it. ”
I really would like to see you back that up with something.
“If as you suggest Microsoft is the way to go , then why are you not following your own advice ?”
No i was just following your ‘logic’. There are more windows users then linux users and if we apply your ‘logic’ thats the way to go then.
-
Moulinneuf
“What i don’t understand ”
That’s not the only thing …
“is how attacking linux will bring *bsd down.”
GNU/Linux is currently the #1 contributor to BSD.
In code , developer , financial support , commercial support.
“I really would like to see you back that up with something. ”
http://lwn.net/Articles/176478/
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=MSFT
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL
“No i was just following your ‘logic’.”
You don’t know what logic is and your certainly don’t follow what I am talking about.
“There are more windows users then linux users”
No , there are more GNU/Linux user , there just not in the same distribution.
“and if we apply your ‘logic’ thats the way to go then.”
No , my logic is BSD switch to real Open Source and real free software by modifying its protection clause removing Apple and Microsoft as leech on its market share and market income and make them contributor if they choose to use the code , Thats MY logic , not your self inserted nonsense.
-
hamster
It’s kinda sad that you cant act like an adult or debate in such a manner… Your no better then notparker.
“That’s not the only thing … ”
Agree i don’t understand why people like my self actually bother even asking you anything or argue against your falty arguments.
“GNU/Linux is currently the #1 contributor to BSD. ”
Is that so… In what world is that?
“http://lwn.net/Articles/176478/
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=MSFT
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL
”
Did you even bother do read what you posted or don’t you understand what it says?
“You don’t know what logic is and your certainly don’t follow what I am talking about. ”
I don’t know what basement logic is. But i’m fully aware of what real world logic is.
“No , there are more GNU/Linux user , there just not in the same distribution.”
And ofcause you have some wird thing to back this up with. This time it better be something real good.
“No , my logic is BSD switch to real Open Source and real free software by modifying its protection clause removing Apple and Microsoft as leech on its market share and market income and make them contributor if they choose to use the code , Thats MY logic , not your self inserted nonsense.”
You don’t seem to understand how logic works outside your basement. Some of us don’t give a rats ass about “free software” we do believe in open source. And if you tried to read and understand what open source you’ll see that the bsdl actually is a open source licens as well as a “free software” licens.
-
Moulinneuf
What’s really sad is you change the subject and insult me more then actually discuss anything … that’s what’s childish.
“I don’t understand why … arguments. ”
That’s clear that you don’t understand , but its not my point that is faulty , I discuss reality , you discuss its positive effect and completely forget and disregard and discard its bad effect.
“Is that so… In what world is that? ”
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors.shtml
Linux consulting …
“Did you even bother do read what you posted or don’t you understand what it says? ”
I read it , and unlike you I did understood its real meaning.
“I don’t know what basement logic is.”
That’s clear you don’t know any logic at all …
“But i’m fully aware of what real world logic is. ”
No …
“And ofcause you have some wird thing to back this up with.”
No , its not weird , its called number of user per distribution.
“This time it better be something real good.”
What I offer is always good. But its never something you accept.
“You don’t seem to understand how logic works”
No I understand logic , I don’t understand what you call as logic. Something that take market share and market income with no retribution or contribution I see as really bad.
“Some of us don’t give a rats ass about “free software””
Yes , that’s crystal clear. But that’ your problem , you break the law , you will see jail and fines.
“we do believe in open source.”
No , you don’t …
“And if you tried to read and understand what open source you’ll see that the bsdl actually is a open source licens as well as a “free software” licens.”
Then I guess you wont mind me saying that they are not and be ridiculed for it , or the hole point of my illusion and prestige is that … Making you think I am ridicule and wrong … Hint : BSD is not Free Software and Open Source could be my way to push for reform to make them stronger as such … nah I could never be that bright …
-
2007-01-16 11:45 pm
Bit_Rapist<..snip..>
Neither one of you are really making any points or even on topic, its just long posts with single sentances quoted followed by “no you don’t”, “yes I do” type arguing.
Please move on to something constructive for all our sake.
Edited 2007-01-16 23:46
-
Moulinneuf
Really ? I thought I was making the point that BSD as its market share affected by Apple and Microsoft due to its BSD protection clause , wait I need to read back …
<..Interlude..>
Yes , thats my point , I thought I was clear , Guess I was not so if you have more need of hand holding and question that are intelligent that needs replying to , fell free to jump in and allow me to feel in the blank for you , sorry I f I was not more clear about it.
-
hamster
“What’s really sad is you change the subject and insult me more then actually discuss anything … that’s what’s childish. ”
So when you call people liers just because they don’t agree with you it’s okey but when someone says something about you thats true they are childish… Only in your basement.
“That’s clear that you don’t understand , but its not my point that is faulty , I discuss reality , you discuss its positive effect and completely forget and disregard and discard its bad effect. ”
Your claims are wrong and that makes your arguments falty in the real world out side your basement.
“http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors.shtml
Linux consulting … ”
1/3 of the biggest sponsers is a linux company… long way away from what your trying to say. And you cant say what they are the ones that gives the most just by looking at that side…
“I read it , and unlike you I did understood its real meaning. ”
But do enlighten us then… Most people in the world outside your basement knows that openbsd is missing out on money because of their ‘leader’.
“That’s clear you don’t know any logic at all … ”
As i allready said i don’t know your basement logic.
“No , its not weird , its called number of user per distribution. ”
I would call it bs.
“What I offer is always good. But its never something you accept. ”
You have yet to offer anything usefull for me to accept.
“No I understand logic , I don’t understand what you call as logic. Something that take market share and market income with no retribution or contribution I see as really bad. ”
If you don’t understand the kind of logic i’m talking about its because of your own definition of logic that only counts in your basement. Who cares if you see it as bad? Do you contribute code to any of the bsd’s?
“Yes , that’s crystal clear. But that’ your problem , you break the law , you will see jail and fines. ”
Is that so… Can you tell me why i would be sent to jail for saying i don’t care about your religion?
“No , you don’t … ”
I don’t need some kid in a basement to tell me if i believe in open source or not.
“Then I guess you wont mind me saying that they are not and be ridiculed for it , or the hole point of my illusion and prestige is that … Making you think I am ridicule and wrong … Hint : BSD is not Free Software and Open Source could be my way to push for reform to make them stronger as such … nah I could never be that bright …”
You should have stoped after illusion. Atleast you had that part correct. You live in a big illusion. One where your the one who’s allways right and people who don’t agree with you are liers. Don’t flater your self… your wrongfullness don’t make people think you only make them laugh. You can say all you want that the bsdl isnt a open source licens see if anyone cares. It’s not like anyone listens to you anyways. But did you mail fsf and the osi about them not being right about the bsdl being both a “free software” and a open source licens?
-
2007-01-16 6:40 pm
SReillyDude, it seems to me that every time I see a comment by you, your calling somebody a lier. Why is that? Is there some specific reason or is it just your limited vocabulary?
Just because someone has a different view or opinion than you does not make them a lier. Your inability to be civil about such things hint at a considerable chip on your shoulder.
And for the record, I am not a BSD user. That does not mean that I don’t have a vast amount of respect for the BSDs.
-
Moulinneuf
Lets see :
http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=266
I suppose you did not knew that there was an history button on comments … you press on the name of the previous commenter and it lead you to there profile , press on comments and you can read what else they have discussed you might have missed , if you really care about what they say that is.
Yes , I believe I am limited in my insult and proper use of the English language in reply to certain deserving individual , but thats because the moderator oppose the use of many insults and have told me so.
Do I have a chip on my shoulder , yes , every time I see BSD , as to do with my past , as a BSD advocate , user , contributor , financial backer and translator.
Reality showed me I was wrong to believe BSD’s lies , as to do with some of my code that I was blocked from using even do liar in the BSD camp will tell you that original cant be closed.
That being said , if your painting of me and your lack of research is any indicator , you where probably more interested in scoring some insult on me then actually discuss something intelligent.
I could pull the discussion Cloudy , from is comment history , where market share of GNU/Linux was discussed
and where it was shown to him that its not tiny and this one more then one occasion , that is why Cloudy , for me , is a liar , he discard truth and reality and repeat the same nonsense and lies that he discussed in the past.
Sorry , If my comment disturbed you.
-
yak8998
“Yes , I believe I am limited in my insult and proper use of the English language in reply to certain deserving individual , but thats because the moderator oppose the use of many insults and have told me so. ”
I think you might be just limited in your use of English in general. If you’re a native speaker, please proofread your posts, they’re a debacle to read.
And its such a travesty you can’t insult on what is supposed to be an intelligent discussion board. You apparently can’t have an intelligent discussion at all if the thread with arielb is any indication…
And yes, your comment do offend me. Most of them do. Your replies like,
“”Honestly”
I know your not honest. ”
really contribute to the community.
Oooooh! I love this history thing. Thanks for pointing it out.
-
SReilly
Wow, a history function. Who would of thought!
Your French Canadian, right? So I’m not going to point out how hard it is to read your comments cause at least you try, but the personal attacks are not gaining you any support.
As for intelligent discussion, you have got to be kidding. You lash out at other peoples comment because they don’t fit in to your world view. How can you consider that to be intelligent discussion?
I have neither the need nor the inclination to research your past posts and have only pointed out your seeming inability to be civil in your comments. If that’s a big deal for you, or your strafing at the expletive limitation of this forum is getting you down, I suggest you p*ss off and go somewhere else!
-
2007-01-17 4:33 pm
dimosd>Your French Canadian, right? So I’m not going to point out how hard it is to read your comments cause at least you try
Attacks about the language are irrelevant in a site where at least 50% of the readers learned English as a foreign language.
Edited 2007-01-17 16:48
-
SReilly
Your absolutely right and that’s why I didn’t attack his language or use of English.
Please re-read the comment more carefully next time and thanks for playing.
-
-
2007-01-17 8:11 am
StevenI am interested in what you discuss as market share , I know your wrong and are mixing market income with market share. But I want to confirm what your discussing first. If its your usual lyes and nonsense I am not interested.
I would wager he is looking at something like this: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
Windows XP 85.3%
Mac+MacIntel 5.67% (4.15 & 1.52, respectively)
Windows 2000 5%
Windows 98 1.77%
Windows ME 0.89&
Windows NT 0.68%
Linux 0.37%
Admittedly, that only shows internet usage, likely doesn’t include web servers, etc, but their results do show a drop in “Linux” in the past 4 months and a great increase in MacIntel, and I’d wager most of the 0.07% that was lost was some sort of migration in that direction.
But, let’s assume for a moment that web servers should count, and we’ll make a stupid rash assumption and say that every single web server running apache in the world is running linux(which is, obviously, false)… well, web servers only actually make up about .5% of the worlds computers, so… at 60% (apache share) of .5% + .37% that would bring Linux up to 0.67%… which is still way below Mac…
Now, I can’t say that’s the way things sit right now, I’m just saying that from a short look at the numbers that’s the way it appears
-
2007-01-17 11:17 am
cyclops“their results do show a drop in “Linux” in the past 4 months and a great increase in MacIntel, and I’d wager most of the 0.07% that was lost was some sort of migration in that direction.”
Why?
Having spent a long time playing with this site…because its great. Why would *if* the figures are accurate. Show that Mac is taking Linux’s market share.
When if could be.
After WGA people tried linux as an alternative.
People interested in OS trying out Vista
Sites used in the figures become popular with Linux users.
People finding Linux is not for them.
etc etc.
What is clear from the *these* figures is Linux is becoming increasingly popular.
*What* is interesting, that you have left out of your post is Linux, according to this site has *massive* fluctuations in Linux figures. Particularly with massive peaks in April and August, which is where you get your *last four months from* with no real explanation, as no other OS is shown to have this massive variation.
I have looked for an explanations, including Ubuntu launches or WGA, but no single event explains such dramatic changes.
The only thing we could *ascertain* from this data is 25% increase in Linux usage every year, of users of those sites.
You are trying to deliberately mislead people and that is wrong.
Edited 2007-01-17 11:18
-
macisaac
“OS/X, which is BSD derived, has roughly the same market share as all of the Linux distros combined.”
You’re confusing desktop presence with overall presence. Yes, there’s more mac desktops out there than linux desktops (I’d guess). Now how about servers? Picture would appear to change there…
Anyhow, it’s a moot point. As someone else said, OSX != a BSD distro.
-
2007-01-17 7:45 pm
-
macisaac
of course it does. however I’d think it safe to say it doesn’t come close to the enterprise presence of linux at this point. if it did, you’d see more folks trying to make money off it, which largely, you don’t.
-
2007-01-16 5:32 pm
g2devi> create their own closed world for their own benefits
> – which incidentally, doesn’t help any of the BSD
> projects in any way.
I’m a GPL/LGPL supporter. It follows a quid quo pro idea (I scratch your back if you scratch mine) that ensures that you won’t be “ripped off”. It’s the license set I’d use if I were to write software for open source.
But you’re forgetting one key advantage of the BSD license — sometimes you have code that you want to have as broadly used as possible so *want* to be ripped off (as long as you get the credit). For instance, think of the Unix standard and TCP/IP. Both succeeded precisely because they were BSD-licensed. TCP/IP in particular isn’t the best protocol out there, but since it could be “ripped off” it could be used directly in everything from routers to MS-Windows to Mainframes. If the TCP/IP stack had been LGPLed, it would have been a less popular (in particular, MS-Windows would likely push it’s own protocols the way they’ve pushed active directory).
Before anyone mentions active directory as a example of why the BSD license fails, consider this. I the Kerberos code and protocol wasn’t available in BSD form, Microsoft would have no reason to stick to an existing protocol and would have developed something a lot more complex that would require a lot more reverse engineering to implement.
-
segedunum
For instance, think of the Unix standard and TCP/IP. Both succeeded precisely because they were BSD-licensed.
Succeeded in doing what, exactly? Microsoft used a BSD based TCP/IP stack many years ago, and now they don’t. It’s made zero difference to anyone.
If the TCP/IP stack had been LGPLed, it would have been a less popular (in particular, MS-Windows would likely push it’s own protocols the way they’ve pushed active directory).
It would have compelled Microsoft to keep their code open or come up with their own stuff and keep off the grass. Microsoft’s protocols (WINS etc.) were already totally dead where the internet was concerned, and they would have probably written their own TCP/IP stack anyway – and they did. I fail to see how helping Microsoft out helps anyone else.
In short, it made no difference whatsoever.
-
sappyvcv
It helped adoption of a single protocol used by the majority of the computers around the world, sooner rather than later. It DID help and you’re blind to think otherwise.
-
segedunum
It helped adoption of a single protocol used by the majority of the computers around the world, sooner rather than later.
A protocol Microsoft didn’t really want to adopt, and they needed something – fast ;-).
It DID help and you’re blind to think otherwise.
From the point of view of a BSD licensed project, helping Microsoft was a rather pointless exercise.
-
sappyvcv
Uh. You didn’t even address what I said. It helped, whether BSD cared or Microsoft wanted it to. It did. The end.
-
2007-01-17 12:56 am
BluenoseJakeNot just MS, but everyone had access to BSD code to use in their BSD stacks, that’s why TCPIP became the standard for the Internet. it was used by everybody
-
arielb
Firefox is the most popular open source app by far, probably one of the most essential for other OS’s because of its website compatibility and is not GPL. It’s tri-licensed with gpl but they won’t accept any gpl code because of the MPL.
Apache is also extremely important to linux and linux wouldn’t be the “server” OS without it. Linux wouldn’t go anywhere without X, either.
-
2007-01-16 8:05 pm
sirhomerInteresting enough arielb, I can take X or Apache and make it much better, and re-release it under the GPL and there is nothing these projects can do about it. You can licence BSD code under GPL but not GPL code under BSD. GPL is a popular licence for many reasons, but it is also a much “stronger” open source licence then BSD.
I perfer the GPL because I think it respects my copyright as a developer more then the BSD does. I wouldn’t like it if a company like Microsoft or Apple was to my code in their closed applications without compensation. The GPL allows me to licence my code and make money in this way, while the BSD does not.
Edited 2007-01-16 20:05
-
openwookie
I perfer the GPL because I think it respects my copyright as a developer more then the BSD does. I wouldn’t like it if a company like Microsoft or Apple was to my code in their closed applications without compensation. The GPL allows me to licence my code and make money in this way, while the BSD does not.
Sure, that’s your preference.
However, I would be thrilled if code that *I gave away* was included in a commercial product that was to be used by possibly millions of people. Talk about bragging rights.
-
-
openwookie
Per tell openwookie, what things have you released under the BSD licence?
Nothing yet. I develop web apps, so its rare that I get to write anything that would be beneficial to release.
I have a couple of small ruby libraries that I could release, I just have no time to polish them up (documentation, etc). When I do release them, they will be released under the ruby licence (which is similar to BSD).
-
arielb
Linus doesn’t get any compensation from Novell or Redhat from using his code. Yes, the code is out there but only the companies that didn’t really write the code will actually make money from it. That’s because you can’t make money from just selling open source software. You can only make money from support and that only benefits big companies!
Also with bsd you can still make an app or OS that’s open source and still have the option of making another version with proprietary features such as codecs and fonts.
-
2007-01-16 10:21 pm
Happel>Linus doesn’t get any compensation from Novell or >Redhat from using his code.
Well Linus is employed by OSDL. Both Novell and Red Hat are members of OSDL.
“Red Hat and VA Linux, both leading developers of Linux-based software, presented Torvalds with stock options in gratitude for his creation. In 1999, both companies went public and Torvalds’ net worth shot up to roughly $20 million [1].”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
So I think Red Hat gave something back? How much money did *BSD developers get from Yahoo,Google,Apple or Microsoft?
Edited 2007-01-16 22:22
-
2007-01-16 10:23 pm
IceCubedLinus doesn’t get any compensation from Novell or Redhat from using his code.
From wikipedia (and “Just for fun” by Linus himself):
“Red Hat and VA Linux, both leading developers of Linux-based software, presented Torvalds with stock options in gratitude for his creation. In 1999, both companies went public and Torvalds’ net worth shot up to roughly $20 million”
-
arielb
Gratitude isn’t the same as legally required compensation. Fortunately for Linus, there was a lot of dotcom hype and he sold before the stocks busted. Most gpl developers can’t count on being compensated at all.
Is Linus getting anything from these deals:
http://open.itworld.com/4917/061220mslinux/page_1.html
No, but Microsoft can actually make money from linux. It’s really hard to beat microsoft when it comes to support for big companies. They could try to knock off redhat and then the only way anyone could make money from linux is by working with microsoft.
-
2007-01-16 7:27 pm
eggs“The GPL compels companies and people to put their code back into the kernel”
As long as you don’t distribute your changes you are not compelled to do anything.
2007-01-16 3:34 pm
-
2007-01-16 7:23 pm
Doc Pain“Ask a lawyer and you can’t trust yourself anymore
“Ask two lawyers and you will get three different opinions. 🙂
2007-01-16 3:37 pm
Haicube
Okey, there’s been debates about how bad closed source is to gain traction to the GPL.
There’s been debacle about suppossedly “Free” to gain traction to the GPL.
There’s been hype about Freedom (not the word in the glossary) to gain traction to the GPL.
I thought that was quite enough, now suddenly, throwing crap at the BSD camp is the next method to gain traction to the GPL.
Simply face it, this is nothing but bulls**t at best. This will not gain any traction to your cause and will at best make the few mature people still in this mess take considerable distance to advocates of a previously favoured license/community.
Paaathetic
-
2007-01-16 4:08 pm
CronoAs far as I read the article, the arguments were absolutely valid.
Throwing shit back without being responsive to the points is a very bad style of argumentation, FYI.
2007-01-16 4:54 pm
nathanw
As far as this article’s actual arguments go, it is correct. You can’t ‘relicense’ BSD software, in that you can’t remove the BSD license and replace it with another one. When it says that the following must be reproduced, it means it. What it *doesn’t* say is that you can’t add things to the license attached to a derivative work. The standard way to do this is:
(c) Me 2007
By using this software you agree to the following:
(1) You may not redistribute this code without paying me lots of money.
Portions (c) Someone else 1999-2006
—INSERT BSD LICENSE HERE—
These don’t conflict. The only reason they do for the GPL is that the GPL explicitly states that these are the *only* conditions you may attach to that program and to the licensing of any derivative work.
2007-01-16 6:40 pm
Don T. Bothers
While following the IBM/SCO/Linux case, I had always looked at Groklaw as some sort of legal authority on the case. In reading this article, they have lost all credibility in my book and have put a big question mark on all their previous articles they had written. It seems they are just a bunch of amateurs writing mumbo jumbo. From this day on, when reading their articles, I will always take everything they say with a grain of salt.
-
2007-01-17 3:05 am
elsewhereWhile following the IBM/SCO/Linux case, I had always looked at Groklaw as some sort of legal authority on the case.
The problem is that many other people did, as well. PJ and her crew are free software activists, with a clear bias that influences their “reporting”. They’ve never tried to hide this, but many people seem to blissfully ignore that and treat Groklaw as some sort of authority.
The SCO case was something the entire community was united in, so that bias was easy to overlook because we all pretty much shared the same opinion anyways. To her credit, PJ did a remarkable job of combing reams of legal documentation to bring the core issues to light, much to SCO’s chagrin. But there’s no denying the reporting was decidedly biased against SCO, as SCO pointed out repeatedly and even attempted to initiate a pro-SCO information site. However, none of us care(d) because, well, it’s SCO.
SCO has quieted down, so now the Groklaw community is stirring whatever other pots they can find. That is certainly their right, and all the more power to them. But at the end of the day, Groklaw is simply an uber-blog espousing personal opinions with facts and documentation selectively chosen to back them. There’s is not even the slightest attempt at balanced reporting or seeking counter-opinions.
The breaking point for me was the scam about Novell forking OpenOffice. That was over the top, even for them. And they were called on it by many others, which hopefully validated the fact that Groklaw is an opinion site, a very well written one at that, but not an authoritative resource.
2007-01-16 6:54 pm
SReilly
The guy is correct in that you can’t relicense BSD source code but beyond that, the article is pointless. Allot of us already knew that, no big upheaval here.
So the guy rights a 3000 word article spelling out what is already comen knowledge, big deal. Meanwhile, over on OSNews, his article has sparked a flame war between GPL and BSD proponents. WTF!?!
Frankly, the two licenses may be source incompatible but the operating systems that have one or the other as their main license WOULD NOT BE ANY WHERE NEAR AS GOOD WITHOUT THE OTHER!
So people, please stop flinging mud at each other. As far as I see it, we are not doing ourselves any good with this sibling rivalry.
2007-01-16 7:59 pm
sirhomer
I think the “BSD” and “GPL” camps need to see that they have one common enemy, Microsoft, instead of fighting each other how about attack Microsoft instead?
-
openwookie
I think the “BSD” and “GPL” camps need to see that they have one common enemy, Microsoft, instead of fighting each other how about attack Microsoft instead?
Not everyone considers MS to be ‘the enemy’. That tends to be a ‘linux’ point of view.
“Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix”
— De Raadt
-
2007-01-16 10:21 pm
DevLExcellent quote.
I generally applaud anyone striving to become better than him- or herself rather than someone striving to become better than someone else.
The aim for any FLOSS project should not to beat Microsoft, Apple, Sun etc. It should be to beat itself.
-
macisaac
Catchy quote, but that doesn’t make it true. It sometimes seems the camp I’ve heard spew the most vitriol about another “competing” OS and its users is the BSD camp against Linux.
Jealousy perhaps?
2007-01-16 11:27 pm
macisaac
here’s an alternative license that perhaps we could use to escape these legalistic nonsenses:
– this is freeware.
– don’t sue me.
– licenses are imaginary, and they all suck.
– including this one (just less so).
2007-01-17 1:45 am
Soulbender
that groklaw doesn’t actually grok law. Oh the irony.
Wether you like the BSD license or not, this article is garbage.
2007-01-17 5:17 am
kefkathecruel
Edit: Title should read “idiotic fanoboism”. I need more coffee.
Too funny.
Edited 2007-01-17 05:18
2007-01-17 10:09 am
This can’t be true but if it is Microsoft and Apple need to rewrite half of their kernels.
Wait, what?
Microsoft used to use BSD code in their tcp/ip stack and http://ftp.exe has some BSD code. What else?
Apple’s kernel isn’t BSD at all, AFAIK. I thought only userland stuff was? Or maybe I have that backwards.
I quote:
“Sockets are based on the UNIX sockets implementation in the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD, release 4.3) from the University of California at Berkeley.”
Source: http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=…
Apple’s kernel isn’t BSD at all, AFAIK.
It is originally based on Lites, which is a BSD-based server on top of the Mach microkernel. Much of the userland code is also from various BSDs.
I followed your link and do not see the text you quoted.
I’m piggy-backing on your first post so that others can read an honest, unbiased, and well-researched response to this paper.
FUD-buster: this paper has one severe flaw amongst otherwise decent logical analysis. It is not FUD from GPL fanatics, but reads more like the work of a BSD supporter that falls on the anti-relicensing side of the BSD community. The relevance of this analysis is not in any way tied to Australian law except in the one place where noted in the paper. Besides the critical flaw, the analysis seems to work in any common law jurisdiction (in my opinion).
The big flaw is that clause 2 of the BSD license, which contains the main grant of redistribution in source or binary form, modified or unmodified, indicates that the conditions of this grant are “following.” Then, clause 3 requires the retention of “this list of conditions.” It follows that the BSD license requires the retention of clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, and the disclaimer, but NOT clause 2.
So while redistribution of BSD code in source or binary form, modified or otherwise, requires the retention of the original copyright, the list of conditions, and the disclaimer, it does not require the retention of the main license grant, without which the license does not permit redistribution in any form (as per default copyright terms).
In short, the default application of the BSD license does seem to involve viral license propagation, but it does not prevent distributors from removing clause 2, thus preventing the propagation of redistribution rights to the recipient. It would be smart for proprietary users of BSD code to remove clause 2 from their products to bolster their defense against redistribution.
Further, as others note, the BSD license does not require the availability of corresponding source code to licensed recipients of the object code. However, it does allow the redistribution of source code corresponding to licensed object code should the recipient happen to obtain it. So, if I buy a proprietary BSD package in binary form, and some cracker steals and hosts the source code from the author’s development box, then my license actually permits me to lawfully distribute the leaked source code. The cracker, it seems, would be on the wrong side of the law.
Despite its major flaw, I believe this paper achieved its intended purpose of shedding some light on the confusion surrounding the BSD license. It *is* more restrictive than you might think, because those conditions you are required to retain *do* have legal ramifications. Is a redistribution of BSD code, modified or not, required to carry the BSD license? I don’t think so. But it does seem to require a subset of the BSD terms to carry with redistributed works, a subset which does not seem to grant a license to redistribute in any form.
Finally, although distributors are permitted to remove clause 2, I don’t believe many of them actually do in practice. With this clause in place, any modifications of the source are redistributable, at least within the same source file, and possibly beyond.
Responsible comments on this reading are appreciated…
Edited 2007-01-17 00:42
BSD does not REQUIRE source distribution. It ALLOWS source distribution.
The code itself is always copyright by whoever and that code itself is still technically under the BSD license but it can be encapsulated within other projects making it basically closed.
Anyone else noticed a lessening of linux distro review type articles lately???
The GPL freaks are spreading more FUD than ever about BSD, as they see it growing and growing lately. They don’t want people to use it because it means less Linux users in their war against Microsoft. Poor bunch of acne-ridden teens!
Obviously you want to flame the lawyer with a legal opinion that points out a few things that might be different from what is commonly known.
Meanwhile all the BSD’s are choke full of GPL’ed software starting with the GPL’ed GCC compiler. Yes, there are BSD licensed compliers but they arent used by these BSD flavors, so let’s not turn this into a GPL vs BSD argument. Note that the paper doesnt get into this sillyness.
Edited 2007-01-16 15:34
If you didn’t want a flame was you should learn to bite your tounge.
>all the BSD’s are choke full of GPL’ed software starting with the GPL’ed GCC compiler.
The system itself works without any GPL code (and it’s more than just a kernel), it isn’t possible at all because of the GPL.
Most of the GPL software resides in ports and gcc is an addon, it’s not essential for a running system. So yes, it’s not about GPL vs BSD, but these are essential details!
“The system itself works without any GPL code (and it’s more than just a kernel), it isn’t possible at all because of the GPL. ”
Yes. You can put up a kernel and base tools without any GPL’ed code. Works” != Usable for the significant portion of users though. We need more software out there and the large majority is licensed under GPL. Look at http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for a detailed analysis.
” So yes, it’s not about GPL vs BSD, but these are essential details!”
BSD folks like Theo are so much fanatical that they wont allow GPL’ed software into the base system and not even Apache 2 because he considers it non-free but the whole system is compiled with GCC anyway. Linux distributions are however happy to put BSD code in their system.
Same for NetBSD and FreeBSD. So yes, you require GCC to even bootstrap the system. Try compiling it with any other compiler and watch it all break down.
But you don’t need it for a running system – think of embedded systems, special server applications and so on.
>Linux distributions are however happy to put BSD code in their system.
Yes because GPL will eat BSD license. And *BSD people are proud in writing good code without any restrictions.
>Works” != Usable for the significant portion of users though
“The significant” <- depends on your environment, if you are a desktop-user … but there it depends too and it’s possible.
>Theo are so much fanatical
And therefore most of the best and secure software is from OpenBSD – you’ll find it in Windows, Linux, *BSD, Solaris …. Because Theo is fanatic about openness and security.
>You can put up a kernel and base tools
Many people call this an operating system.
“Yes because GPL will eat BSD license. And *BSD people are proud in writing good code without any restrictions. ”
GPL license is not some cannibal and your words remind me of Microsoft’s FUD.Learn to stick to legal terms when talking about licenses.
“The significant” <- depends on your environment, if you are a desktop-user … but there it depends too and it’s possible. ”
No. Significant means the large majority.
”
And therefore most of the best and secure software is from OpenBSD – you’ll find it in Windows, Linux, *BSD, Solaris …. Because Theo is fanatic about openness and security.
It is because BSD licensed code can be easily forked off and merged into proprietary systems like Windows. Whether OpenBSD is secure or not has nothing to do with whether GPL’ed components are allowed in the base system.
“Many people call this an operating system.”
Precisely. OS is useless without applications and large majority of Free software applications are written under the GPL license. So for usable applications you are quite probably relying on GPL’ed code.
Many people call this an operating system.”
>GPL license is not some cannibal and your words remind me of Microsoft’s FUD.Learn to stick to legal terms when talking about licenses.
Call it whatever you want. If you take BSD code and put it under the GPL, you will have GPL-code afterwards. So yes you can tell people about the vast majority of GPL-code – tha’s a nice thinking. Call it “viral” instead and if you have problems with the term, think about “free software” and “open source” – it’s nonsense too without the proper context!
>Precisely. OS is useless without applications and large majority of Free software applications are written under the GPL license. So for usable applications you are quite probably relying on GPL’ed code.
But you don’t have to use it, try this with the Linux kernel. Period!
Apropos licenses,
Apache – GPL?
PHP – GPL?
Mozilla – GPL?
Enlightenment – GPL?
Firefox – LGPL, GPL, MPL
Qemu – many licenses
Vim – GPL?
w3m – GPL?
and so on …
Yes the majority is GPL software, but from the beginning? And can of course build a usuable system without GPL software – to compile it I have to use GCC. This is no war against GPL software, I’am using it too – but don’t spread such a nonsense because of your very own horizon.
“Call it whatever you want. If you take BSD code and put it under the GPL, you will have GPL-code afterward”
So,Name calling is ok. A license can be called a Cannibal for BSD folks I suppose and no you dont have change your BSD code to GPL just because you mingle some GPL code with it. Learn how licensing works properly.
“But you don’t have to use it, try this with the Linux kernel. Period! ”
What are you talking about? Linux folks have no problem using BSD code. It’s people like Theo who refuse to even use Apache2 and call it a non-free license.
“Yes the majority is GPL software, but from the beginning? ”
What beginning are we talking about?
“And can of course build a usuable system without GPL software – to compile it I have to use GCC.”
Hmm. So you need GCC to build a usable system which is under GPL. Your claim is self contradictory.
“This is no war against GPL software, I’am using it too – but don’t spread such a nonsense because of your very own horizon.”
Explain why Theo refuses to use GPL’ed or even Apache licensed code under OpenBSD if there is no war. Calling things nonsense just because you disagree is a poor way to make your point.
Explain why Theo refuses to use GPL’ed or even Apache licensed code under OpenBSD if there is no war.
Because Theo is smarter than you…
“What beginning are we talking about?”
Presumably the free and open software that existed before the GPL.
“Linux folks have no problem using BSD code”
Are you being ironic? Because from the look of much talkback here, slashdot and on other sites many Linux folk do have problems with the BSD license.
“Explain why Theo refuses to use GPL’ed or even Apache licensed code under OpenBSD if there is no war.”
Because neither the GPL nor the new Apache license is compatible with the goals of OpenBSD or with Theo’s ideas. It has nothing to do withsome imagined “war”.
Apropos licenses,
Apache – GPL?
PHP – GPL?
Mozilla – GPL?
Enlightenment – GPL?
Firefox – LGPL, GPL, MPL
Qemu – many licenses
Vim – GPL?
w3m – GPL?
and so on …
Yes the majority is GPL software ….
No, the majority is not GPL. In fact, Qemu is the only GPL program here:
Apache – Apache License
PHP – Apache Licence (as of version 4)
Mozilla – MPL
Enlightenment – BSD
Firefox – MPL
Qemu – GPL, LGPL
Vim – Charityware
w3m – MIT licence
So yes, you require GCC to even bootstrap the system. Try compiling it with any other compiler and watch it all break down.
Actually even though the BSDs use GCC, OpenBSD is able to be completely rebuilt using Tendra, a BSD licensed compiler. It’s a pain but possible.
Meanwhile all the BSD’s are choke full of GPL’ed software starting with the GPL’ed GCC compiler. Yes, there are BSD licensed compliers but they arent used by these BSD flavors, so let’s not turn this into a GPL vs BSD argument. Note that the paper doesnt get into this sillyness.
The BSD OS’s simply include GPL software to execute. The kernel and core system do not and could not use any GPL code. All the while GPL software can consume and create derivative works using BSD code, but BSD code can’t (and still remain BSD that is).
Your jab at how “the BSD’s are choke full of GPL’ed software” itself is an implied GPL vs BSD argument. And the sillyness that the paper *does* get into is essentially trying to make the BSDL more GPL-like.
But even when you say that any BSD derived works must be covered under the BSD license, that still does not change anything since as deadlinkous stated, the license itself does not require source distribution.
”
The BSD OS’s simply include GPL software to execute. The kernel and core system do not and could not use any GPL code. All the while GPL software can consume and create derivative works using BSD code, but BSD code can’t (and still remain BSD that is). ”
Well if you want only BSD code, you cant use any other licensed code. That is a no brainer to conclude. You can mix and match both of them (assuming it is the 3 clause BSD license).
”
Your jab at how “the BSD’s are choke full of GPL’ed software” itself is an implied GPL vs BSD argument”
Of course not. It is just pointing out the irony of name calling in the OP’s “GPL freaks”
“And the sillyness that the paper *does* get into is essentially trying to make the BSDL more GPL-like. ”
Nope. It does point out a very valid legal opinion by a lawyer that you cant simply relicense any code licensed under BSD as many people do assume.
“But even when you say that any BSD derived works must be covered under the BSD license, that still does not change anything since as deadlinkous stated, the license itself does not require source distribution.”
Obviously the ability to relicense is a critical difference between MIT X11 license and the BSD licenses. You might want to actually consider that for sometime before proclaiming that it doesnt change anything.
Nope. It does point out a very valid legal opinion by a lawyer that you cant simply relicense any code licensed under BSD as many people do assume.
I disagree about the weight you give to the article. They are merely educated opinions based off of Australian law , and neither US nor Australia have had any hard rulings on such matters.
But again, for all practical purposes, how does it change anything? The ONLY difference it makes to maintain the BSD license required for distribution, are that you maintain the copyright notice and that the owners and contributors of that BSDL code cannot be named for endorsement without their consent. Yet these are inconsequential for those who are already using BSD code today because they are not violating any of those terms. MS still maintains copyright notices (ok, so you’ll have to look hard) and they aren’t using the authors of the BSDL works in promoting their products either.
GCC compiled programs are not infected with GPL.
What rubbish! Where do you see “GPL freaks” spreading FUD? Well, I don’t see anyone. Linux is not at war with MS – on the contrary, MS is at war with Linux because it notices a remarkable increase in market share by Linux. Where does BSD come in? BSD? Huh? You must be joking. There is no BSD “growing and growing”. Where do you live buddy? Milky way?
“Anyone else noticed a lessening of linux distro review type articles lately???”
Not really. Except that there hasnt been major releases now. Many of the popular distributions work on a bi yearly cycle. When the next stream of releases come around somewhere in April 2007 timeframe, you can start getting reviews again. Maybe you miss them so much.
>>BSD does not REQUIRE source distribution. It ALLOWS source distribution.
I agree with this argument, and it strikes me a bit that it’s never said. In fact, the BSD License is generally included among Free licenses (even by the FSF), and while it might be Free in that it allows you modification and redistribution, it’s certainly not an Open Source license. And it’s NOT compatible with the GPL no matter what the FSF says.
Imagine Nvidia decided to distribute its binary drivers under the BSDL. Could you oblige them to give you the source code according to the license? Not at all. It would be perfectly legal to distribute the drivers in binary-only form under the BSD license. Ok, so now it would be legal to distribute a Linux kernel with the Nvidia drivers linked to it because they’re under the BSDL which is compatible with the GPLv2? Certainly not, since the GPL requires you to distribute the source code along with the binaries.
The fact that all the code distributed under the BSDL is open source doesn’t mean it MUST be open source. It just means that people who license under the BSDL are nice enough to provide you with the source code. But you can’t legally force them to do so.
Imagine Nvidia decided to distribute its binary drivers under the BSDL. Could you oblige them to give you the source code according to the license? Not at all. It would be perfectly legal to distribute the drivers in binary-only form under the BSD license.
What would be the point? Sure they could, but the fact is if someone is openly distributing something under the BSD liscense they’re giving the source away.
it’s certainly not an Open Source license. And it’s NOT compatible with the GPL no matter what the FSF says.
How is it not an open source liscense? Code that is distributed under the BSD liscense is just as easily available as GPL code, they differ in redistribution. Code doesn’t have to be viral to be open source. The BSD liscense focuses more on giving away the code, while the GPL focuses on sharing the code while keeping honest people honest. I don’t see that it makes one better than the other. Finally, the BSDL is most certainly compatible with the GPL and it’s because of it’s liscense; the GPL on the other hand is not compatible with the BSDL, which I beleive is a distinction that the FSF makes.
Edited 2007-01-16 19:13
>What would be the point? Sure they could, but the fact is if someone is openly distributing something under the BSD liscense they’re giving the source away.
Yes, that’s what I said in my last sentence. The best thing about the BSD License is not the license itself (which I don’t judge, anyway), but the people who use it. Their attitude of contributing their code is great. It just has nothing to do with the license itself.
>Code doesn’t have to be viral to be open source.
True, there can be licenses that are Open Source but not viral. They can say: If you distribute this code in binary form, you should provide the source code too. Nothing more than that. But the BSD License says nothing about providing the source code, hence my example about Nvidia drivers.
>I don’t see that it makes one better than the other.
I never meant one is better than the other. I just wanted to point out something I believe is important: that the BSD license is not about Open Source and that it’s not compatible with the GPL.
Finally, the BSDL is most certainly compatible with the GPL and it’s because of it’s liscense
The BSD License CAN be made compatible with he GPL if the source code is provided. But since this is not a must, then it’s not automatically compatible, as is usually believed to be (see example in previous post).
“Anyone else noticed a lessening of linux distro review type articles lately???”
Well, that makes sense..since there has not been a new distro released.
IANAL, but I personally think the analysis is flawed. The crux of the argument is here:
6.2 We should also note here that, in the world of licensing, the appropriate starting point is to assume that what is not permitted is prohibited (at least to the extent that it is prohibited by copyright or other laws). The BSD does not include an express permission to license under different terms, so the ability to license under other terms can only be arrived at by implication. There does not appear to be any basis in the words of the license which supports such an implication.
While it is true that it is correct to assume that “what is not permitted is prohibited”, the second part of the argument seems to be an erronous assumption. The license does not state that derrivates have to fall under the BSDL, just that modified version should include the license. So, the code that is copyrighted by the author continues to fall under the BSDL, but any additions are owned by who adds it, and the second author can impose their own licensing terms. Suppose that in a clear-cut case we have a program that consists of three files:
myprogram.h – proprietary license
myprogram.c – proprietary license
util.c – BSD license
The author compiles these files and links them, making one program. This program is governed by both the proprietary license and the BSD license. Though, the proprietary license restricts the user. This is allowed by the BSDL, since it only asks to include the license in the documentation (and of course, the code from util.c is under the BSD license). Theoretically, it would probably be legal to extract the compiled util.c file and redistribute that (since the BSD license allows that).
So, to summarize:
– The BSD license allows you to use and redistribute works in binary and source forms.
– Including BSDLed code in other programs is redistribution, so it is allowed.
– It says it is allowed provided that the license is included. Or to quote literally “[…] are permitted provided that the following conditions […]”. Making the whole work subjective to the BSDL is not a condition, so it should be perfecly fine to use other licenses.
Though, I am not suprised to see this among the license drivel we have seen from a fraction of free software advocates. Please realize that there are some people out there that want to use other licenses than copyleft licenses.
Terrible wind-blown article.
The BSD license is superior in every way and primarily for 2 reasons:
1) Simplicity
2) Far less need to legislate to enforce
“The BSD license is superior in every way and primarily for 2 reasons: ”
Well that explains all the good commercial support and ISV’s.
Well that explains all the good commercial support and ISV’s.
I am sorry to wake you up. But code licensed under the BSDL and comparable licenses is used practically everywhere. From parts of opensource systems (X11, PostgreSQL), to closed-source systems (OS X, virtually everything that uses a TCP/IP stack that is not Linux or Solaris). BSDL-ed code is probably on of the best supported codebases (by license), though most users don’t know they use BSDLed code.
You are probably mixing up the BSD license and the BSD operating system (for which commercial support is also widely available).
Edited 2007-01-16 16:01
“Well that explains all the good commercial support and ISV’s.”
I am sorry to wake you up. But code licensed under the BSD and comparable licenses is used practically everywhere.
Ahem. Think before you answer. Your answer is NO WAY contradicts what I said. If the license is always superior in all circumstances why is the ISV and commercial support for BSD systems lagging so much behind Linux. Why are all the vendors like IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Dell etc working more on Linux? Obviously the license superiority is not a foregone conclusion by any means. The use of code licensed under BSD doesnt change the commercial support aspects of it.
Please don’t spread FUD because of any real information. Red Hat is a Linux company, HP and IBM are using their own commercial Unices too, Novell is a no-brainer. Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD and so on. Most of the work environments are mixed ones, so one operating system has the hype, the other is working
>The use of code licensed under BSD doesnt change the commercial support aspects of it.
The lack of information doesn’t change anything too!
“Please don’t spread FUD because of any real information”
Nope. It is obvious that BSD commercial and ISV support lags severely behind Linux.
“Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD”
Oh come on. How many well known vendors provide commercial support for FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. Thats what I am talking about. Not usage.
‘The lack of information doesn’t change anything too!”
Either understand the thing being asked or stay off the discussion.
Oh come on. How many well known vendors provide commercial support for FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. Thats what I am talking about. Not usage.
And assuming you mean “call in for help”
http://openbsd.org/support.html
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consult_bycat.html
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/hardware.html
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/isp.html
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/misc.html
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/software_bycat.html
http://netbsd.org/gallery/consultants.html
You know how long those lists took to pull up/find? ABout 45 seconds…
And to return the question, what difference does it make how well known a vendor is? If you call IBM for support, or try to get them to implement a new feature, they’ll politely tell you to go to hell (unless you actually use their particular product, and even then only if you make it worth their man/hours to help you.)
Either understand the thing being asked or stay off the discussion.
@manmist:
How about you stop insinuating people are stupid now you ill-informed twit.
“Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD and so on”
Really? So I can download iTunes or say Google Earth for NetBSD?
Yahoo is using an extremely hacked up and customized version of FreeBSD for their internal servers. Google, (correct me if I’m wrong but I thought) they were using also an extremely hacked up and customized version of _Linux_ for their stuff. Apple smacked together a kernel based on Mach with a FBSD userland, and whatever else from NeXT, etc. Nothing of this sounds like “supporting” to me.
Ahem. Think before you answer. Your answer is NO WAY contradicts what I said. If the license is always superior in all circumstances why is the ISV and commercial support for BSD systems lagging so much behind Linux. Why are all the vendors like IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Dell etc working more on Linux?
“Think before you answer.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA… Yes, asking why Red Hat works more on Linux is totally a good argument technique, way to go there…
(hint for the slow: Red Hat = Linux Distribution Company; this is a sure fire way of telling the poster does not really have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Watch for it folks, it’s just that easy.)
But, no, really, lets look at this for a second:
Microsoft Windows Copyright:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
…[cut for brevity]…
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
AIX:
This software and documentation is based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution under license from The Regents of the University of California.
HP-UX:
“”
TCL/TK:
This software is copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California.
So, lets stop that for a moment and just get down to this: Microsoft, IBM, Sun, HP, Compaq (DEC), Novell, hell, just about every large company I can think of that writes commercial software uses BSD code in their software…
Now, maybe you can define how that is not “commercial” support? Or did you mean “publicly go out of their way to say “hey, we use [insert some name for free publicity by riding a media buzzword here] in our computers and we give back to the community!” Cause, well, if that’s what you mean, it’s not only a bad scale to use for commercial support, it shows nothing but inane marketing attempts. Attempts that you seem to have fallen into completely…
Companies that commercially support BSD in a limited form (in no particular order, just a short list, I don’t feel like reading all the names, these are just things that caught my eye): The US Government (DARPA), Yahoo, Hudson River Trading Inc, Google, SPS Studios, Vivonet Incorporated, Linux-Consulting.com, The Socialist Party of the Netherlands, Graphical Data Capture Ltd, PARSE Software Devices, Collaborative Fusion, Inc, Sun, Natural Fit Supplements, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Hell, I could make this list 14 pages long pretty easily… You see, the difference between Linux and BSD projects is that Free/Net/OpenBSD are not buzzwords, no CTOs perk their ears up when they hear them, nobody really knows about them outside of the technical branch of the world, so there’s nothing to gain by spouting “WE SUPPORT BSD! OH YEAH! YEAH BUDDY! WE ARE TOTALLY COMMUNITY PLAYERS! BUY OUR STUFF, BECAUSE WE CARE!”
See, that’s the way marketing works.
The fact that hundreds of people and organizations directly support the BSD systems through monetary donations, hardware donations, and actual coding won’t come up because they can’t get anything out of telling people about it. That aside, the fact that nearly every software company in the world uses BSD code is, in itself, support. They take the code, they modify it, and the world gets to use products that otherwise either wouldn’t exist, would be poorer quality, or would just take years longer to develop.
That aside, a great many of the companies who have borrowed BSD code, while not wanting to put their own changes out to the public, have gone on to make monetary donations to the projects.
And I don’t know about the rest of you, but I see “This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.” as “commercial support” every damn time I come across it.
Edited 2007-01-17 07:18
But code licensed under the BSDL and comparable licenses is used practically everywhere. From parts of opensource systems (X11, PostgreSQL), to closed-source systems (OS X, virtually everything that uses a TCP/IP stack that is not Linux or Solaris).
I’ve heard that used as an argument by various people for the BSDL, and the usage of various BSD software as a primary reason, but it means absolutely nothing. Unless those companies and projects contribute anything back to the BSDL code they are using, it doesn’t help anyone in any way, and it doesn’t help the health of the BSD project in question.
An example among others -> Apple. They give something back in terms of code, money, build/mirror servers and so on.
>Unless those companies and projects contribute anything back to the BSDL code they are using,
They are stealing GPL code too and you will not know most of them, because it’s impossible, maybe only by accident. So in the end you have GPL, which makes the life of developers very difficult if you mix up with other licenses.
An example among others -> Apple. They give something back in terms of code, money, build/mirror servers and so on.
Which is why something like Darwin is practically dead, and no one will be able to do anything truly useful with it. The only thing that truly matters to an open source project is code.
They are stealing GPL code too and you will not know most of them
Wow. So the GPL doesn’t really work properly, and people just steal the code anyway? Do you have any evidence for that?
So in the end you have GPL, which makes the life of developers very difficult if you mix up with other licenses.
The benefits quite clearly outweigh any disadvantages on that score. As explained though, everyone knows exactly what the GPL entails, but some just want to pretend that it’s difficult for their own ends ;-).
They are stealing GPL code too and you will not know most of them
Wow. So the GPL doesn’t really work properly, and people just steal the code anyway? Do you have any evidence for that?
Haha, sorry folks, I know it’s probably still a touchy subject, but some folks seem to have the memories of goldfish.
Segedunum, if you want evidence that people just steal GPL software for the hell of it expecting not to get caught… do a google search for a little thing called “CherryOS”
Here, I’ll save you the trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CherryOS
You see, software licenses are like the lock on your door. If someone gets a sudden urge, they’ll jiggle the knob and the walk away after finding it locked… but that doesn’t mean door locks work, it means most people will give up and leave… but a locksmith can still get you into your house… so, it stands to reason that someone else could just as easily.
As with anything else, it’s just there to keep “honest” people “honest”.
The cherry OS people just happened to be the stupid punk teenager who breaks a window with a rock rather than learning how to pick the deadbolt, but you can bet there are a crap-load of people who spend the time to learn how the lock works before trying to rob you… and those are the ones nobody catches.
Segedunum, if you want evidence that people just steal GPL software for the hell of it expecting not to get caught… do a google search for a little thing called “CherryOS”
Here, I’ll save you the trouble: