Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."
Thread beginning with comment 208302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

"That BSD's will allow closing of the code ( ultimate freedom remover ) and switching to another license ( ultimate license usage remover )."

Yes, it's possible and explicitely allowed by the BSDL. See the many projects using the BSDL and being free - they don't close code.

May I ask you if you're coming from a capitalistic oriented country? If not, maybe you're not understanding that exactly this freedom (of closing code) is neccessary to get market share? The term "market share" is always used to proof why one product is good (has a high market share) and another product is bad (has a low market share). Isn't this what capitalists want?

And about switching to other licenses: That's not true. Code that is BSDL will stay BSDL. If I use it, I have to include the BSDL's text in my documentation. I may release my software (the parts I've written myself) under the BSDL or under the GPL. I may also *not* release my source code. I may use BSDL code included into a commercial project as long as I follow the BSDL's instructions.

"List all the bad things for Open Source and Free Software and BSD's as it."

I think I don't understand you.

"No , because in a true scientific environment , you dont get locked out of scientific data or from the improvment or derivative made to/from it."

In science, in academia, you're usually locked in with some old fashioned MICROS~1 products. This goes for programs and for data.

I may tell you that everyone serious uses standardized and free data storage systems such as XML so there's no chance for getting locked in with the data created. To give you an example: I implemented a simple test analysis tool for the SCL-90-R checklist which runs on FreeBSD. Input data and result data are stored as a text file so I can use it anywhere I want. Anyone else can, too. But I don't see it's neccessary to release the program's source scl90r.c because it's dirty coded, it's in german only and anyone else may only work with it if he has bought the original test before in order to use the program legally (which costs some money). I don't want to bother anyone just because I'm to lazy to evaluate test by hand, just because the BSDL allows me to do so. :-)

"That's the problem , you claim to understand but you jump to other points and avoid point I make and take the discussion in another direction to avoid them directly. Your not honest in your discussion."

Maybe it seems to you to be this way. Maybe because english is my third foreign language and it surely is not your native language. It's hard to figure out what you want to tell exactly, so maybe I misunderstood you. I have to admit that I don't get your points because you don't elaborate at them in a way that it's clear to understand.

"BSD's is not ok for any situation."

What's okay then? And why is BSD used?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 13:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Miss-information"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok , so your telling me that in those words : "You are allowed to close the code and switch its license at your own free will is granted by the BSD " , is part of the bsd , no , sorry , they ( those exact word ) dont exist. Your granting yourself right that are not given by the BSD protection clause.

Im from CANADA ...

If BSD where primarely capitalist , paying to use it the most money possible would be its primary goal. Its primary goal is *Usage*. Witch is defeated by the special right some people have granted themself by closing there derivative and switching license , two actions that are not covered or dare I say permited under the BSD's.

"Isn't this what capitalists want?"

No , all capitalist care about is making the most money , you can have 5% market share but if people pay more and you make more money then the rest of the other people making up that 95% market share the capitalist want that.

"And about switching to other licenses: That's not true. "

Look if its not true then port the BSD based software and driver inside Apple and Microsoft and other closed system to all the BSD ... Denying reality lead you nowhere.

"I think I don't understand you."

No , I know your beeing decptive , about your undertsanding.

"In science, in academia, you're usually locked in "

No in true science and true academia your not locked in. Now Science and academia have become more commercial this days , but its not really a good thing.

"Maybe it seems to you to be this way. Maybe because english is my third foreign language and it surely is not your native language. It's hard to figure out what you want to tell exactly, so maybe I misunderstood you."

No , language is not the problem and you certainly look like you mastered it enough to grasp what I am talking about.

"I have to admit that I don't get your points because you don't elaborate at them in a way that it's clear to understand."

No I elaborate , you just decided that what I say is wrong and false. witch is not the case at all. You take the good side of BSD only , where I speak of its bad side , witch you have decided dont exist and is false.

"What's okay then?"

The GPL.

"And why is BSD used?"

Because it exists ...

If BSD is the best why do you change license to something else ?

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[7]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 14:38 in reply to "RE[6]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Ok , so your telling me that in those words : "You are allowed to close the code and switch its license at your own free will is granted by the BSD " , is part of the bsd , no , sorry , they ( those exact word ) dont exist. Your granting yourself right that are not given by the BSD protection clause."

Okay, maybe it's boring, but let me cite from the license file src/COPYRIGHT,v 1.5 2003/12/31 again:

Copyright (C) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
[...]
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


This states 1st that BSD itself is copyrighted by "The FreeBSD Project" and 2nd that 4.4BSD and 4.4NSD-Lite is copyrithted by "The Regents of the University of California".

So lets first recognize who has the copyright on BSD itself. Then, I highlited the terms under which I may redistribute BSD.

Some more about 4.4BSD as the "mother" of FreeBSD:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.


So I may not close the code of FreeBSD and switch it to another license. I may close my code, I also may release it under any license I want. I also may redistribute something that is derived from the original FreeBSD under another license, but the FreeBSD parts stay under BSDL. Example: DragonflyBSD.

"Im from CANADA ..."

Aha.

"If BSD where primarely capitalist , [...]"

I didn't say they were.

"[...] paying to use it the most money possible would be its primary goal. Its primary goal is *Usage*."

Yes, that's correct.

"Witch is defeated by the special right some people have granted themself by closing there derivative and switching license , two actions that are not covered or dare I say permited under the BSD's."

If I developed such a derivative, customers don't pay me for FreeBSD. They pay me for the programs I've written (that run on FreeBSD). Surely you know there are Linux distributions that are commercial. You pay for preconfiguration, documentation and support. Same here. This gets usage share as well. You could even say market share, but that's not true at all because it's not FreeBSD's share, it's effectively mine.

"No , all capitalist care about is making the most money , you can have 5% market share but if people pay more and you make more money then the rest of the other people making up that 95% market share the capitalist want that."

I'm not a capitalist and I don't like them much. :-)

"Look if its not true then port the BSD based software and driver inside Apple and Microsoft and other closed system to all the BSD ... Denying reality lead you nowhere."

I repeat: I may not switch BSD's license. I may switch my license. I may not switch anyone else's license.

For the Apple based software: If they are free (under GPL or BSDL) I could to this. But usually they're not, so I can't. On the other hand, parts of MacOS X are derived from FreeBSD, and Apple sells its OS without opening the sources. The parts that are used are still BSDL, the rest is not.

"No in true science and true academia your not locked in. Now Science and academia have become more commercial this days , but its not really a good thing."

I agree.

"No , language is not the problem and you certainly look like you mastered it enough to grasp what I am talking about."

In some cases I really don't. Don't claim something you can't prove. :-)

"No I elaborate , you just decided that what I say is wrong and false."

No, I don't. I usually try to give hints and proofs to what I'm saying. You don't.

"You take the good side of BSD only , where I speak of its bad side , witch you have decided dont exist and is false."

Then, please be so kind and say explicitely: What are you complaining about? What's bad about the BSDL and BSD itself?

''"What's okay then?"

The GPL.''


As far as I know, the GPL does not allow me to use GPL code in a commercial project. If I derive something from a GPLed program, I have to set my program under the GPL, too. "Transitivity" was mentioned in this discussion, which is more fitting than "viral" (a term that should be avoided). If my program is GPL, I have to give out the source code for anybody else to use. The BSDL does not force me to do this with my source.

''"And why is BSD used?"

Because it exists ...''


Atomic bombs exist, too. Why aren't they used right now?

"If BSD is the best why do you change license to something else ?"

Everything for it's respective purpose.

If I develop something that would be useful for others, I would share it using the BSDL so that others can take advantage from it. But when I develop a special solution for clinical psychology and client data management, I'm sure nobody else would be interested in it. So I hope (!) I'll have the time and attitude to create a product that someone will pay money for. To be honest... I could imagine to free the project if there are enough customers interested in it, so they could download and install the software for free and get the support for a fee... we'll see in the distant future...

Reply Parent Score: 1