Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548220
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Thu 10th Jan 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: He's totally right"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Ahhh, WRONG! The reason why the GPL is popular is that many of the developers in open source are now paid by corporations. These corporations want some kind of assurance that the hard work they are paying for isn't going to be plundered by a competitor and stuffed into a close source project. It has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with business.

Again, that doesn't have any impact on using the software what so ever.

If you're a developer, then choosing which licence to release your code as and what projects to work in is very important. But we're talking about reasons not to run a piece of software - not develop for.

Furthermore, if you really cared about the developers work being rewarded, then you wouldn't boycott *BSD just because of it's license - because that's essentially just wasting the developers time.

And lastly, if you really stood by your principles you wouldn't use Firefox, Apache, Xorg nor any of the other non-GPL software on Linux. So all this "I only use GPL" and the boycotting of *BSD because of it's licence, when MIT is almost identical and essential to Linux desktops, is pure hypocrisy.

Sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it really winds my up that the hard work of BSD developers is effectively rubbished by the non-developer Linux community simply because a few zealots don't like the fact that BSD allows corporations not to contribute back to the original source. Something that makes absolutely no difference to the software from a users perspective.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:08 in reply to "RE[3]: He's totally right"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Furthermore, if you really cared about the developers work being rewarded, then you wouldn't boycott *BSD just because of it's license - because that's essentially just wasting the developers time.


No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

And lastly, if you really stood by your principles you wouldn't use Firefox, Apache, Xorg nor any of the other non-GPL software on Linux. So all this "I only use GPL" and the boycotting of *BSD because of it's licence, when MIT is almost identical and essential to Linux desktops, is pure hypocrisy.


Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle? Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it really winds my up that the hard work of BSD developers is effectively rubbished by the non-developer Linux community simply because a few zealots


As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:13 in reply to "RE[4]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about how some individuals specifically chose not to run Free/OpenBSD because of the license. My comment was directly in response of one 'OSNewser' stating exactly this.

Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle?

Well yes, obviously. But you've completely missed my point. I was saying that the very people who whine about the licence *BSDs are released under and refuse to use those OSs for those reasons, are the same people who happily use other software with almost identical licences. My point was those people are using double standards. My point was such laziness in principles are more than just pragmatism, but arguably just an excuse to hide the real reason for not wanting to use *BSDs; because it's slightly different.

It's exactly the same as fanboys who bitch about Debian being better or worse than Gentoo. Or KDE and GNOME rights. Or even the vi / emac wars. Except in this instance, licences are a completely irrelevance excuse.

Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.


As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

But if they were pragmatic then they equally wouldn't oppose OpenBSD (or even FreeBSD) because of it's licence.

So the pragmatics are not those I take issue with. It's the vocal few.


The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

You're really not listening to my point; I'm not talking about developers (licence zealotry is more understandable if you're releasing code), I'm talking about users. And only a small subset of users at that (I'm in no way tainting all Linux users as BSD-bigots lol).

But you never do understand any of the points I put across. Whether I explain them badly or you're just closed to any opinions other than your own - maybe a bit of both? I don't know, but I think we should just give up now while this discussion is amicable ;)

Edited 2013-01-11 08:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2