Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
FreeBSD Some people already submitted this news last week, but it wasn't until today that it became official: the FreeBSD team has announced the release of FreeBSD version 9.0. As you may expect from the major version number change, this is releas eis packed with new stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 503089
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm...
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 03:31 UTC in reply to "hm..."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

intel HD gfx are not supported very well (uses VESA mode..)

GPL has its advantages. But it really is a tragedy that we can't (or won't) give them our driver code. Lot's of work there that will need to be duplicated. Of course, there is a lot more to porting such a driver than getting over the licensing hurdles. Especially considering the graphics memory management differences. Sun (hypothetically) changing their licence on ZFS would likely have made no difference to Linux's collection of filesystems. But still, it's a damn shame. These guys are our allies. And we have to refuse to give them code because that would make it available to our enemies.

I'm not about to get into a long GPL vs BSD flame war. And I have no answers. But I *will* say that the current state of affairs is a dirty shame. We should at least all acknowledge that.

Edited 2012-01-13 03:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hm...
by 0brad0 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 03:40 in reply to "RE: hm..."
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

GPL has its advantages. But it really is a tragedy that we can't (or won't) give them our driver code.


The license used on the code isn't the issue and the code in question is not GPL'd.

Edited 2012-01-13 03:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hm...
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 05:14 in reply to "RE[2]: hm..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

the code in question is not GPL'd.


Yes it is. GEM is integral to any recent version of the Xorg intel driver. Try running an Intel graphics chipset without it. I have an Intel graphics chipset. So I know this very well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: hm...
by Valhalla on Fri 13th Jan 2012 03:42 in reply to "RE: hm..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


GPL has its advantages. But it really is a tragedy that we can't (or won't) give them our driver code. Lot's of work there that will need to be duplicated. Of course, there is a lot more to porting such a driver than getting over the licensing hurdles. Especially considering the graphics memory management differences. Sun (hypothetically) changing their licence on ZFS would likely have made no difference to Linux's collection of filesystems. But still, it's a damn shame. These guys are our allies. And we have to refuse to give them code because that would make it available to our enemies.

Well I've always thought BSD or LGPL is the 'best' licence for 'driver/library/framework'-type code, but then again that's just my personal preference.

At the end of the day it's up to the actual programmers writing the code, or those paying them to write it to decide which licence to use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hm...
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 07:43 in reply to "RE[2]: hm..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

At the end of the day it's up to the actual programmers writing the code, or those paying them to write it to decide which licence to use.

How uncharacteristically reasonable of you. I agree.

I respect the author's right to choose whatever license he or she deems appropriate. Even a proprietary one.

As a user I certainly prefer GPL or LGPL. But I'm perfectly cool with any Free license, even if some might find it too permissive.

I find myself caring less about the details of the Free licence, and more about whether the author is treating the OSes I use as second class citizens or not. Hence my concerns about Mozilla, which you referenced earlier. Having been a Unix/Linux guy since 1988, for both desktop and server, I've had about enough of being treated as a second class citizen.

That's why I am particularly scornful when I see users and devs of kindred OSes, like FreeBSD, viewed as somehow being second class.

I'm quite happy to see FreeBSD doing well. Such sentiments seem to upset some people. And I'm not entirely sure why. It doesn't make much sense.

Reply Parent Score: 4