De Raadt's team makes OpenBSD, an operating system, and OpenSSH, for secure communications. Here, he talks about why he does it, about industry use of open-source software, and about dedication to quality paying off.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:And the users of that closed program don't have the freedom to look at the source code, nor do they have the right to the program for free, which are the freedoms the GPL give us.
They have so, in what regards those parts of the program that were BSDL'd! What they don't have access to is the parts that were written by the vendor, and why should they? Those weren't written by the original author of the BSDL'd parts, nor by any community, but by the vendor.
Anyway, it's put up or shut up. Name one instance of end-user loss due to some evil corporation building a closed product on BSDL'd components. And think before you write - the OS X users I know don't feel at a loss at all, not to mention that it isn't clear that OS X couldn't legally use a GPL'd kernel server just as it uses a BSDL'd one.
Member since:Anyway, it's put up or shut up. Name one instance of end-user loss due to some evil corporation building a closed product on BSDL'd components. And think before you write - the OS X users I know don't feel at a loss at all, not to mention that it isn't clear that OS X couldn't legally use a GPL'd kernel server just as it uses a BSDL'd one.
The ability to improve upon the vendor code could be one user loss, and there are security implications. Some people don't like to trust vendors, and I don't entirely blame them. And if the vendor charges for that code, then the user is going to lose some money (but of course, they may be happy to part with it, and they might not be). And the Darwin code is base on BSDL licensed code, but Darwin is released with the APSL, which requires distribution of modification, much like the GPL.
But it's not a case of developer loss, they released their code under the BSDL, and they were fine with that. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the BSDL or with the GPL, although you seem to have a problem with the GPL.
If you don't like the GPL, then don't write software or add to software released under the GPL.
You're throwing the word freedom around as if you know the meaning of the word. I'll stop tlking now, since all I would be doing is whistling through your ears.
Wow, you sure showed me.
Member since:
Member since:
You are quite delusional sir, the BSDs only take away one thing; the ability to claim a work as soley your own. That you think the ability to have a closed source derivative is taking away a freedom is silly and incorrect. It is granting a freedom that is not there by default.
And the users of that closed program don't have the freedom to look at the source code, nor do they have the right to the program for free, which are the freedoms the GPL give us.
They both grant freedoms to one group, and take away freedom from another. It all depends on perspective.
The GPL is the one with less freedoms to it. Don't look at this stuff so religiously, look at it practically and through the eyes of the law.
I'm not, you're the one who's looking at it religiously, and being insulting as well. I never even said one was better than the other.