OSNews

X.org has always been MIT/BSD licensed, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Noone including him self knows what he's yapping about. He has a problem with the bsd's and really likes to rant about them every chance he gets. The funny part is that you if ask him about sources for his claims he failes to deliever.

Yes , with the result that less people contribute , develop , fund it compared to similar in importance newer GPL projects. Same thing can be said of all the entire BSD/MIT. The code is being used do , but inside proprietary closed code inside commercial , but non-inclusives , non sharing , non contributing back , projects.



Of course you don't , you see a complaint where none exist.

The minority of thieve and corrupt never undertsand why there actions are seen as bad by the majority they prey upon since they are profiting from it , it must be good , there is never any problem according to them.

*** There is nothing wrong with the Free Software Foundation celebrating making open source licensing. ***

*** There is nothing wronmg with banker and banks who are closing or asking for baillouts because they fraudulantly spent other's people money ***

*** There is no problem with milk producer who distribute poisonned milk into there products , other people childrens dying is not a problem ***

According to you it's illogical to at minimum ask that the Free Software Foundation create solution that are really Free Software that stay Free software in both original and derivatives and there derivative of derivatives.

It's not you , it's me who's obviously the problem , I have this old idea that used to work that Free Sofware was suppose to make Free Software and the FSF support Free Software. Guess I need to adapt to new realities.

Edited 2009-01-08 14:47 UTC

Not a good thing when Moulinneuf notices a BSD article.

Topic/Article is FOSS ...

But who care about reality and details ...

The BSDs are older than GNU\Linux, and lots of stuff used in Linux comes from BSD, like OpenSSH and OpenSSL.

The BSDs use their own CLI tools, their own kernel, their own filesystem (though it can use others.)

XFree86 and Xorg is originally derived from code that ran on UNIX, and almost all unix like OSs use it, so they didn't steal that.

I fail to see how they are thieves.

There is no one certifying or insurring any BSD's against litigation.

You said they use "their own" , that's calling others property as BSD's , That's stealing. But their is more flagrant code taking/relicensing in other software and applications.

Seriously, there's something very wrong with you. Seek treatment immediately, and get on some meds.

Although I am partial to copyleft licenses, in general, I also respect the members of our FOSS community who prefer more permissive licensing, or whose situation makes a more permissive license a more logical choice for them. And I must say that I find the irony of a GPL advocate using the word "thieves" in connection with the BSD community to be beyond my ability to adequately express.

And isn't that post against the OSNews ToS or something? It seems to me that many (most) of Moulinneuf's posts are of questionable intent and value.

Edited 2009-01-10 02:37 UTC

FOSS means Free and Open Source Software , some people have a tendancy to forget the meaning of those words. Like you just did. But then you don't see the insult in saying people who close BSD's to all other but themself are part of a community who try to free and Open Source code.



I read that as prefer to invent new *lying* terminology that sound like they are calling closing code more permissive then letting people use , modify , resale , study it.

more faster then fast ...
more taller then tall ...
more darker then dark ...

More permissive then permissive , but with closing as an acceptable option in a Free and Open Source Software solution ... It make no sense to any sane person.



Is of there own doing ...



Too bad you don't have word or what's that thing , oh yes reality and more importantly proof , to back up your insinuation , fabulations and lies that GPL people stole anyone codes. Even more from BSD's ...

Because then that would have been taken to court , since you can't defeat us in code and in action and that we have the moral high ground due to our action , we must be according to people like you smeared in names calling and take it without any reply at all time , well I guess for every zealots , drug insinuation , you need to see a shrink , and other loathing , I must accept and say thanks ? Because it's my so called religion according to people like you ...

The funny thing is my comment was well within the TOS and acceptable , to the extreme surely , but then I unleashed the flury of insult that is often the tolerated breakage of said TOS when I am the author of a comment and of name calling for saying what I know is right.

BTW this post was written as a real BSD user's and real BSD advocate , you know the old kind that had this utopia of freeing UNIX. What can I say your limited views and false concept can only mention what it knows.
That all who disagree with BSD thieves must absolutely be GNU or GPL something.

I hate to break up the obvious to you but the moderator/editor/owner may not like me that much , they may not like my tone and a lot of the words I use , but they generally don't disagree with the general idea behind what I express. Also when they really disagree I have never seen them be mute about it , or not act upon it.

This will be my last post under this article.