"iXsystems, an enterprise-class hardware solution provider, announced today its acquisition of PC-BSD, a rock solid UNIX operating system based on FreeBSD. PC-BSD is a fully functional desktop operating system running FreeBSD version 6, with a KDE desktop interface and graphical system installer. Its PBI system, developed exclusively for PC-BSD, lets users download and install their applications in a self-extracting and installing format. iXsystems' acquisition of PC-BSD will provide funding to the PC-BSD project to increase distribution of PC-BSD and develop future versions of PC-BSD. Development is currently underway for a version of PC-BSD that will allow for easy installation and operation on servers, workstations, and laptops."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-28
Member since:2005-11-14
Your post shows that you don't quite get what the GPL and free software is all about.
The tit-for-tat, "I'll give you my code you give me your modifications" is the mentality followed by Linus Torvalds and open source in general.
The GNU GPL at its core is more in line with "I'll give you freedom to do 0, 1, 2 and 3 and you can't prevent people from having these freedoms if you choose to use my code". Free software is not about giving back, it's about the recipient of a piece of software having the 4 freedoms to use, modify and distribute that software.
The GPL and other free software licenses don't give you the right to not give users these freedoms if you accept them, others allow you to remove the freedoms you were granted when you redistribute a piece of software (like the MIT license).
RMS also doesn't have a problem with proprietary software developers like Apple using his code. In fact, Apple depends on a project written by RMS licensed under the GPL (GCC); they also depend on KHTML, which has the same requirement as the GPL in this aspect. The problem isn't that Apple will "close" the software, but that Apple will restrict the users of such software. Free software developers that adopt the GPL don't want Apple restricting users of the code they wrote like that.
On a final note, I'd like to request the moderators of this site to delete all the off-topic GPL-BSD debates we've been having here lately. An ocasional off topic discussion is normal, but if this goes on then all the BSD related topics will be filled with this same boring sh*t.
Member since:
2005-06-29
No ... Lets put you in a cage because I feel like it. Maybe , probably not , then you will understand freedom.
Are you too damn stupid that BSD software developers release their code under the BSD license *KNOWING* and *ACCEPTING* that their code be closed by another company? What's wrong with Apple using FreeBSD source code and closing it? Absolutely NOTHING. If I were a software developer, I would release my code under the BSD license for the sake of freedom. I don't want to force anybody using my code to have to release source code if they make changes. Use my code, change it and release it open or close, whichever. If you can't use open-source software for a closed source application, for me it's close to useless.
BSD is a philosophy. That you give and that you don't expect anything in return. I write for Wikipedia, and I don't expect anybody to cite their source. I wrote a number of articles on Wikipedia and I don't want anything in return for yourself. I did it for people in general. This is the true meaning of giving when you don't want anything in return for yourself.