“Even if you don’t use OpenBSD, you’re likely to be benefiting from it unknowingly. If you’re using Solaris, SCO UnixWare, OS X, SUSE Linux, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, chances are you’re using the OpenBSD-developed OpenSSH for secure shell access to remote machines. If so many are using this software, why are so few paying for it? Official responses (and non-responses) from Sun Microsystems, IBM, Novell, and Red Hat are below, but if you’re one of the freeloaders who hasn’t contributed to OpenBSD or OpenSSH, what’s your excuse?”
It’s open source software. I’m not sure if calling users “freeloaders” is quite the correct term…
The BSD licence is all about calling people freeloaders. As it offers no other protection than the right to bitch about how someone who uses the software they created isn’t contributing back. This is true freedom.
– Jesse McNelis
Honestly mods, this is nothing but flamebait and you mod it up 5?? You’ve got to be kidding.
Well, I don’t want to start a license war, so I’ll just state my opinion : the license is a great deal of the problem.
Let’s say it’s BSD. It’s summarized by OpenSSH folks as BSD license, or licenses “more free” than that. “more free” does not mean anything as long as the software is free already, they mean the licenses give you more power, but “more free” is better to entertain the troll with the GPL.
Well, so OpenSSH is BSD license, it’s designed specifically to be used without anyone giving anything back.
And now, they are complaining because people don’t give back anything ? How hypocritical, as they were warned long ago, and even proposed to go GPL.
If such a software was GPL, companies would battle to host it, offer servers, pay bandwidth, …
Because they could not control the software, all they could do is please the devs, to have the devs more receptive to their propositions.
While with BSD license, if the dev stops, someone else can take control of it entirely, and put resources on it to its sole benefit.
Not possible with the GPL, which assure you that what resources you put on the project will not help the competitors outpace you.
It works now because OpenSSH devs are so good and dedicated, that the big boys can’t do better, but I’m not at all surprised that they don’t want to pull resources in sth that can be locked from them so easily if it was to stop, or the devs to disappear.
And now, they are complaining because people don’t give back anything ? How hypocritical, as they were warned long ago, and even proposed to go GPL.
Asking for help/contribution (monetary, they don’t need coders, they have the best!) is no hypocracy? You just use this issue as an excuse for yet another bsd vs gpl flamefest, which is unnecessary.
Please, (this is for other folks as well) don’t bring in the licensing issues – it is such a weak excuse. Licensing the code under the GPL wouldn’t put food on their table. Lots of GPL projects are asking for help (monetary or otherwise) as well. Bringing up the BSD vs GPL license issue in this context is ridiculous.
It is pointless to license OpenSSH under the GPL, because Theo et al don’t need help maintaining OpenSSH/BSD.
They are doing a great job, and your avg. Joe programmer couldn’t contribute a quality patch to such a sensitive project. I wouldn’t WANT anyone outside of Theo’s team ‘giving back’ in this manner.
They need monetary ‘giving back’. No FLOSS license switch is going to help this problem.
Usually GPL’ed projects don’t suffer from this.
If they want money, use a proprietary license instead of bitching.
“They are doing a great job, and your avg. Joe programmer couldn’t contribute a quality patch to such a sensitive project.”
This is a perfect example of the elitist asshole attitude that drives people away from the BSDs and towards Linux.
The OpenBSD devs aren’t some sort of supernatural programmers. They are just regular programmers which share a common interest in security and happen to know the OpenBSD code better that the outside people.
Some “average Joe programmers” have contributed small things to the Linux kernel that turned into great things. Even if that weren’t the case, just the hospitality of the Linux folks are enough to explain why Linux is so popular and the BSDs keep chugging along in the shadows, just like they have been for the last decade.
Sure, some people would say that’s just where the BSDs want to be, right before they start bitching about how Linux is getting unjustified credit and explaining it with “hype” and “buzz”. I call that “denial”.
Ok, but cutting the rant… If the BSDs want to keep their elitist attitude, they should also settle on having less funds. People don’t tend to give money to assholes.
I have to agree with the article though that this is a pretty sad state of afairs.
I can’t really comment on all the companies, but certainly Apple:
A. Has a huge cash stockpile
B. Even discusses OpenSsh on their OS X security page as part of Darwin
How is it that you have the right to complain when you use a license that requires no giving back? The BSD license is not ideal for exactly this reason, as it requires nothing of the people redistributing the code. At least the GPL requires changes be made available. And if I want to use GPL’d code in a proprietary app, I am forced to go back to the authors and negotiate a license that allows me to do that.
It’s actually also an intereting paradox. The very license that led to its wide adoption, prevents the authors from being paid. Had a more restrictive license been used, it is very doubtful that OpenSSH would be in such wide use today.
“The BSD license is not ideal for exactly this reason, as it requires nothing of the people redistributing the code.”
What part of the word “money” is it you people dont understand? GPL vs. BSD is totally irrelevant on this topic. How insecure are you people in your faith in the GPL that you have to bring this sh1t up over and over again?
What part of the word “money” is it you people dont understand? GPL vs. BSD is totally irrelevant on this topic
You brought up the GPL vs BSD topic. The GP was talking about BSD flaws only.
You’re pretty naive to believe that the license does not influence the money you get from a project.
How insecure are you people in your faith in the GPL that you have to bring this sh1t up over and over again?
I’m searching for the part which is not flamebait in what you wrote there.
Now go read Theo’s numerous exchanges, and tell me how insecure he is in his faith of the BSD license to bring this sh1t up over and over again.
You are the same, taking jabs at the GPL as soon as someone shows BSD flaws, keeping your head in the sand that the situation is not due to the licensing (and human nature).
“You brought up the GPL vs BSD topic. The GP was talking about BSD flaws only. ”
No i didnt.
Quote: “At least the GPL requires changes be made available. ”
Changes are irrelevant when what you lack is funding.
“You are the same, taking jabs at the GPL as soon as someone shows BSD flaws”
I’m searching for the part which is not flamebait in what you wrote there.
Sorry, where have i taken any jabs at the GPL? I said that neither the GPL nor the BSD license addresses the problem at hand, namely financing. Sure, I jabbed at the zealots but even though I dont favor the GPL I have nothing against people using it for their projects.
You make the point in the article very well. If the issue is making money, then BSD allows lot’s of people to do that, except the people actually writing the code. My comment was entirely within this context.
From the users (distributor’s) perspective, the BSD license is great because it allows me to make all the money I can and not have to share it with anybody, which is exactly the point of the article. The GPL might be a better license for the authors, because it at least forces participation in the project.
BTW, I’m not trying to start a religious flamewar, just have a discussion about the merit of the situation that the OpenSSH project finds itself in. Please don’t accuse me of being a religious zealot because I see some merit in the GPL.
“Please don’t accuse me of being a religious zealot because I see some merit in the GPL.”
Perhaps it does (but that’s a discussion for another time), but no merits that relates to financing.
Btw, my reply wasnt really directed towards you personally but more agaisnt the general tone of a good part of the posters.
Btw, I didnt write the article.
Edited 2006-03-29 13:29
How is it that you have the right to complain when you use a license that requires no giving back?
This is the heart of a thorough misconception. There is a difference between “is” and “should” (legal code and ethics). Yes, the license does not require that you give anything back. But the question is, is it morally good to earn tons of money with the work of other people, and give not back a cent?
The answer depends on your ethical POV. My personal opinion is that it is bad.
When you choose to release source code under a license that does not require further recognition than your ownership of copyright, you don’t really have any reason to expect reimbursement later on simply because it’s popular. It’s deciding terms after the fact. You’re ‘shameful’ for not sharing the wealth with someone that didn’t come to you and say, “share the wealth with me, or your conduct is shameful.” They said, “here’s the code, do whatever you want; death to telnet!” This isn’t an issue about their licensing vs. other OSS licenses, because typically speaking there’s no requirement for financial remuneration there either.
But people have little place to shame others for them acting under the agreement between both parties, simply because one party profits from it financially and the other doesn’t. People buy properties both physical and intellectual from one another, or even those received as a gift, and then often find ways to sell it for a profit. Sometimes this can be a substantial increase over the costs associated with acquiring it. You don’t, after someone rakes in money, ask where the other person’s share is because someone is doing well. Even if it is on the backs of others. Those companies are doing well precisely because they don’t retroactively go back through all of the people that make their business possible and say, “You know what, we made even more money than we thought we would. Here’s some money.”
You get up one morning and you decide to write some open source software, release it to the world, and it’s a great success. Maybe it’s in the best interest of certain parties if they invest some money into further development, and maybe it isn’t. Maybe it is and they still don’t. That doesn’t make them “shameful.” They didn’t grab up your work expecting to support you. It was never part of any agreement. At best their actions are stupid and counterproductive. Other people with their criticisms are turning open source software into “indeterminate cost software.” Use it, and pay an unspecified, unagreed to amount or be publicly flogged for greed.
When you choose to release source code under a license that does not require further recognition than your ownership of copyright, you don’t really have any reason to expect reimbursement later on simply because it’s popular.
Wow. I can’t believe people are still hung up on this completely stupid conception. They may be playing the “do what’s fair” card in order to get contributions but you don’t really think that’s the reason that they are asking for money, do you?
The OpenBSD project is not looking to profit. They are not looking for reimbursements so that they can retire after having made the world a better place. They are looking for enough money to continue on in the same bare-bones fashion that has allowed them to contribute so much already. This is not about money for what happened in the past. This about money to allow for what could happen in the future.
Actually I think it’s whiny forum posters that are looking for reimbursement; by and large people that don’t develop free software and likely don’t contribute financially themselves. I’ve read Theo’s quotes from various articles and there’s nothing especially unrealistic about them, though the manner he’s portrayed as going about it makes him appear bitter. It’s the other people that are making a big deal out of these attempts at raising funds for their project on their behalf that are playing the fairness card to a ridiculous amount. That they are or are not looking to retire is completely irrelevant. Their motivation for acquiring funding is wholly inconsequential. There is no reasonable amount of shame to be applied to these companies, because they’re simply abiding by the agreement presented to them by authors of software. These are the same sort of agreements we all make every day in every transaction we’re part of. If the strategy is insufficient for OpenSSH’s development then that’s the risk associated with the choices of its developers and the people making use of it. It’s all about the past, and the decisions these parties made by accepting to use code that was given to them under very liberal terms for absolutely no fee. People are looking to shame them because they happen to have money, when looking to profit off of the labor of others is exactly what business life is about. Their actions are simply stupid, not shameful. If OpenSSH cannot continue development, then they will bear the cost of tying themselves to a project that’s unsupported. Shameful? No. Just the result of decisions on both sides of the agreement.
Their actions are simply stupid, not shameful.
I can definitely agree with that. That said, Theo is the one doing the talking and he has decided that shame is a more effective tactic. I don’t really care how he gets the money, because having the project survive is more important than the semantics of whether the big companies are stupid or shameful.
Not so humane view but very true.
According the to “agreement” there are no requirements apart from “don’t mess with the copyright notice”.
We are allowed to use it without giving anything back, so it’s perfectly ethical correct NOT to give anything back.
If you want money, then make sure people cannot get it without paying you.
In America we call it the 1st Ammendment.
Everyone has a right to complain kid. That’s one of those inalienable things
.
Maybe next we should say Republicans can’t talk because that war in Iraq isn’t ending quick enough?
Can we please NOT turn this into yet another retarded my-license-is-better-than-yours flamefest?
Is it possible to mention BSD on OSNews without the GPL zealots coming out of the woodwork?
I’m sure there are sites that welcome discussions on which license is better but this isnt one of them, especially not when the topic doesnt have anything to do with licensing.
Can we please NOT turn this into yet another retarded my-license-is-better-than-yours flamefest?
This is not the case, you made this up.
The case here is that the license is the main culprit.
Is it possible to mention BSD on OSNews without the GPL zealots coming out of the woodwork?
Who do you call GPL zealots ? Do you read Theo De Raadt comments ?
If you did, I think you would shut up already about GPL zealot, because when Theo write sth about his beloved OpenBSD, he loves to put jabs at GPL and Linux.
What’s worse, this article itself is a jab at Linux and GPL : the blame is put on Linux in the title, despite the fact that several companies in the article are not Linux supporters, and rather BSD supporters, or using BSD.
I’m sure there are sites that welcome discussions on which license is better but this isnt one of them, especially not when the topic doesnt have anything to do with licensing
You can keep your blinders, but the problem here has everything to do with licensing to me.
And we’re not discussing which license is better here, we’re discussing the flaws surrounding this license, especially when the proponents of it now complain about these very flaws when they burned by it, but instead of putting the blame on the license, they put it on others.
Hypocritical !
Indeed! It is amazing how people (GPL zealots?) use this article as an excuse to start another BSD vs GPL license flamewar. Licensing in this context is way offtopic. There are lots of GPL projects asking for contributions – monetary or otherwise, and what is your excuse in those cases?
Everytime something comes up concerning software licensed under the BSD or MIT licenses, people would hijack the topic to start a GPL vs BSD flamewar, instead of staying on topic. This is becoming quite tiresome. When will this end, really? When I click on a submission that relates to software I use, I’m interesting in discussion, not the same old, ridiculously repetitive ‘it is because of teh bsd license’ bulls. If this keeps up, there won’t be any need for providing a summary for articles concerning bsd licensed software. Not even links are necessary. Just have a sample text ready for bsd related news, something along the lines of “there are news concerning BSD software, time for another bsd vs. gpl flamefest.” Content is absolutely secondary or completely irrelevant. Because no matter what (financial troubles? blame the license!) the content is, as the parent says, the GPL zealots will come out of the woodwork to hijack the thread and turn it into their favorite gpl vs bsd license playground.
maybe that’s what the problem is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a … Well, you get the point.
Could we please be free for all the BSD zealots coming out of the woodwork?
I’m still using telnet! Want my IP?
Is it unfathomable to help the developers even if the license doesn’t require you to do so? An act of good will, such as donating money, would be a great boost to any company’s PR campaign. Unfortunately, capitalism doesn’t work on good will.
I think it’s very good that the financial issues of OpenBSD are made public and visible. I didn’t even know or hadn’t considered that OpenSSH originated as a part of OpenBSD, and I’ve been using OpenSSH since 2000! The more people know about it, the more probable donations will become.
(My excuse is the standard “I’m a poor student”. I’m still considering pre-ordering OBSD 3.9, although I could buy food for three weeks with the money.)
Edited 2006-03-29 12:29
A large part of the value of OpenSSH is not just that it works well, it is the way it advances and responds to new challenges. Corporations should donate money, documentation and co-operation; out of enlightened self interest.
A donation of, say, $10,000 from, say, Sun would make a difference to OpenSSH/BSD/etc. It would also reflect a lower need for in house developers ($10k now looks cheap). It would also provide a highly positive public image amongst an offbeat group of geeks who influence most of the buying decisions that so interest these corporations.
There an attitude being aired that says the BSD license involves asking to be ripped off. My view is that the BSD license involves the granting of both quality and freedom and also the treating of the recipient as a grown up also capable of creativity and innovation. A small measure of appreciation from those who benefit should be there in proportion … and it currently isn’t.
BEGIN RANT
Part of the problem is that they never appear on the corporate financial radar that is controlled by bean counters who understand price of everything; the value of nothing…..
END RANT
Is it me or does the article just seem very provoking and slightly encourages a flamewar?
“Is it me or does the article just seem very provoking and slightly encourages a flamewar?”
No. it’s not just you. While it does touch on some interesting topics it’s not exactly unbiased and levelheaded. Then again, completely unbiased and levelheaded writing is rarely interesting to read in the first place.
This is the reason I don’t use the BSD license for any of my software. The world is full of ingrates and opportunists ready to prey on my sweat, tears and blood. This is also the reason why Linux (read GPL licensed) has so many corporate sponsors and contributors, while the *BSDs have so many corporate leechers and freeloaders.
“This is also the reason why Linux (read GPL licensed) has so many corporate sponsors and contributors, while the *BSDs have so many corporate leechers and freeloaders.”
So your logic is that if you *force* a corporation to share the changes it has made to some code it will gladly also give you money out of pure good will?
If they’re so happy about sharing why would you need to force the sharing of changes in the first place?
Sorry, that’s not how the real world works.
No, my point is if you feel your software is worthless and has no value, go ahead and BSD it, that’s what corporate leechers want you to do anyway.
Corporations in capitalist markets are slaves to money. If anyone thinks they are altruistic then those people might as well believe donkeys fly. The GPL forces them to contribute directly or indirectly back to the community, and sometimes the developers reap the rewards of their labor in the process. Take a look at Samba or Linux, for e.g.
The BSD, on the other hand, gives corporations unprecedented rights to exploit your work and have you bend over, while they contribute nothing back. Have a look at Apple and the list mentioned in the article.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to GPL OpenSSH, the damage has been done. Again, why is that Linux has so many contributors, while the *BSDs have so many leechers. You can pretend it has nothing to do with the license.
“The GPL forces them to contribute directly or indirectly back to the community, and sometimes the developers reap the rewards of their labor in the process. Take a look at Samba or Linux, for e.g.”
Right, that must be why so many (L)GPL projects has fund drives and ask for donations.
At least those projects don’t go about lamenting about how “*BSD Supporters Fiddle while (L)GPL Project Burns.”
You are confusing the article about the project with the project itself.
BSD: – We need money!
GPL: – That’s what happens when you use BSD license. Turn license to GPL, people will contribute code changes.
BSD: – Did I say that we need money?
GPL: – Yeah, corporations are taking your code for free. Turn license to GPL, they’ll be forced to contribute code.
BSD: – But we don’t need code, we need *money*.
GPL: – Sir, GPL gives you freedom, not beer. If you want beer, why do you use BSD license in the first place? Turn to GPL.
BSD: (head explodes)
GPL: – Hey, I’m not trying to start a religious flamewar here.
I nearly fell off my chair laughing out loud.
+5 Funny.
Agreed, it’s an awesome post. I had actually hoped noone would post after it since it was the perfect summary of what this discussion turned into.
“Take a look at Samba or Linux, for e.g.”
Take a look at Apache, XFree, FreeBSD, Perl, Python, PHP and Sendmail.
>>>Take a look at Apache, XFree, FreeBSD, Perl,
>>>Python, PHP and Sendmail.
Funny how none of the software you listed is licensed under the terms of the BSD, with exception of FreeBSD and Sendmail.
None of them is (L)GPL either. XFree is using a slightly modified MIT license and X.org uses the MIT/X11 license.
Edited 2006-03-29 15:23
This is also the reason why Linux (read GPL licensed) has so many corporate sponsors and contributors, while the *BSDs have so many corporate leechers and freeloaders.
FreeBSD (to name one example) does have it’s corporate sponsors, funding full or part time development. But admittedly it’s a lot less, and a lot more low-key. A number of these sponsors rely on FreeBSD for powering their servers, and a number use FreeBSD code in closed software/hardware.
See for example:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39158017,00.h…
These sponsors, combined with the centralised development model which the BSDs use to prevent duplicated work, ensure that BSD keeps up.
But it’s true the BSDs get a lot less corporate attention, and sustain themselves mainly through individual donations. OpenBSD, as one of the smaller BSDs, suffers for it, because they get overlooked. In theory, the BSDs lend themselves more to corporate adoption than GPLed Linux, but Linux got hyped first, leaving BSD in the dust. OpenBSD are right to call attention to the fact that the wider software community benefits from their work, whatever license they happen to be using.
Edited 2006-03-29 14:01
No corporate capitalist entity in its right mind is going to contribute to a BSD project, it’s that simple. Especially when their competition can totally rip off their contributions. This is the key reason corporate entities leech off *BSD, while contributing almost peanuts in comparison to high profile GPL projects.
No corporate capitalist entity in its right mind is going to contribute to a BSD project, it’s that simple.
The notion that contributing money or resources to a BSD-licensed project is bad business is so narrow-minded the mind boggles. Surely (obviously) there are some people who believe this, but what are the reasons?
* “Contributing to (BSD licensed) Project X will benefit my competitors; they can use the changes I funded for free!”
Yes, others have the option of using new the project without contributing a cent or line of code back, while you/your company (gasp) spent money! Sorry, there is not proof to support the notion that a company that “Does the right thing” is doomed to fail, or fall behind it’s competitors. If your company would pay $1000 for the kind of code that Project X develops without charging money (notice I didn’t write “for free” – code development costs time and/or money) and your company doesn’t donate a cent or line of code to support it’s development, they’ve just helped to disadvantage themselves. If they do donate then they’ve just helped to advantage themselves, even if they donate a full $1000 – which, it should be noted, they are not required or compelled to do by Project X.
Of course there are philosophies of business that encourage what amounts to the amputation of an arm in order to hurt competitors, but that’s not the only philosophy of business (and I would argue not one of “right mind”.)
* “It would be foolish to contribute to Project X without being able to directly influence its direction.”
Well, obviously if your company’s using the project’s output its because they need it and find it useful. Not contributing to the project won’t change the fact that they don’t “Control” it; and you know, if they do contribute they’re, by that alone, more involved in the project.
* “Competitor X has more influence with (or gets more benefit from) the project than my company, that’s dangerous to us”
Again, not contributing to the project won’t change that. If the company uses it’s output then it’s a benefit to it and if it’s a benefit and they wish it to continue being a benefit then a contribution can help ensure that.
Rather than continue to enumerate all the short-sighted or fear-inspired excuses that some companies don’t contribute to BSD-licensed projects, I’ll just point out that many many companies do indeed contribute to such projects, and I think they are “right minded” to do so.
* “Contributing to (BSD licensed) Project X will benefit my competitors; they can use the changes I funded for free!”
As they can with a GPL-licensed project, *unless* they distribute the result. Given that most software is developed for in-house use and is never distributed, it doesn’t seem such a big deal to me.
I think the problem in this case is more to do with Theo and the OpenBSD project’s tendency to spend time pontificating instead of organising funding.
What I found most amusing was that they clearly had plenty of people willing to buy the CDs when we all had modems and ISDN, but now we can use broadband a) we don’t buy anything and b) their FTP services are strained.
I would have thought that the obvious thing to do is to make the FTP service subscription-based for the current release ISOs and *ask* people not to host torrents without donating. Doubtless Theo would call me an asshole for saying that, though, and go on his hobby-horse about free. Eventually maybe he’ll learn that free doesn’t pay the bills.
I think the problem in this case is more to do with Theo and the OpenBSD project’s tendency to spend time pontificating instead of organising funding.
I think you know just about nothing about the OpenBSD project. Seriously, go read misc@ or undeadly.org. A million people contribute the same ideas over and over again, never proposing anything practical. Theo and others repeatedly tell them to shut up for “pontificating instead of organizing funding”.
In fact, fundraising is exactly what Theo and crew are doing right now. After the media deluge of the past week, how are you unable to see that?
If that whiny rant counts as ‘organising funding’, then its no surprise that there’s trouble.
Me, I just preordered 3.9. I’m quite happy to buy stuff.
I’ve avoided OpenBSD in the past but since the NetBSD disks I cought don’t run on the little Via box I want to use, I might as well give it a try. 😉
Like I said, if the project needs to sell disks to keep going, then it should try (harder) to drive users towards that.
I’m sure that they’ll get a surge of income now (and they got mine after all), but that’s only really a short-term relief, isn’t it?
In a way, its surprising that they can’t get into bed with Sun, especially, since a T1000 with the lowest-spec chip would probably be a handy edge server running pf, and while Sun would rather sell Solaris, OpenBSD is hardly a threat in the way that Linux is in terms of mindset. Hardware sale is a hardware sale – particularly if Sun can sell accelerator technology and maintenance on the back of it.
But I doubt that any such relationship to enable this could happen with Theo shooting his mouth off like that so publicly. Its not the first time, either.
My point is very simple about this: why OpenBSD doesnt split the project into 2 parts: OpenSSH and OpenBSD. People use OpenSSH, but not OpenBSD. They’re asking for money to OpenBSD to support OpenSSH. Doesnt make to much sense to me.
When OpenSSH become a independent project, if they ask for donations, they will receive it, just because people use OpenSSH and please put a DONATE button in OpenSSH projecto too..
Why OpenBSD doesnt split the project into 2 parts:
Because (a) it would make the financial problems for OpenBSD worse not better, potentially killing it off entirely, and (b) if people wont donate money to help the OpenSSH project when its part of OpenBSD what makes you think they will donate to it when its a seperate project?
Seriously, why would people donate money to OpenSSH when they wont donate money to the project that produces OpenSSH? All the objections to Theo de Raadt’s personality would still be there because he’s also a major contributer to OpenSSH, it would still be the same piece of software that everybody uses, it would still be developed under the same license, for the same OS’s. All it would mean is that we would loose OpenBSD, OpenCVS, OpenBGPD etc.
Do people really refuse to help OpenSSH because they dont like OpenBSD? How many people hate OpenBSD so much that they refuse to help a project they use and rely on because the money may be used by OpenBSD? I just dont see this.
The developers for the two projects are pretty much the same people anyway so it would be all but impossible to split (“come to the Hackathon but please dont mention OpenBSD while you’re there because its paid for from OpenSSH donations”).
please put a DONATE button in OpenSSH projecto too..
At the bottom of http://www.openssh.org there is a “We need donations” link that goes to
http://www.openssh.org/donations.html
Good enough?
Perhaps people want a separation of funding because maintaining OpenSSH is a less ambitious task than developing an entire operating system, and while they make use of OpenSSH they do not make use of OpenBSD. So they make their contribution to OpenSSH now, but they don’t want to be hit up for more money in a year or two because the money has been spent hosting hackathons for OpenBSD development. They want their money used judiciously on the task the directly benefits them. It has little to do with hating OpenBSD, and more to do with not caring about OpenBSD, but caring about OpenSSH. If OpenBSD dies because it cannot secure sufficient funding, to such people, it doesn’t matter. They just want OpenSSH to be maintained so it can be used with the operating systems that they actually use.
This is exactly it. I don’t care about OpenBSD either way. i don’t have any emotional issues with any OS.
I just know this:
I used OpenSSH on all of my machines.
It makes my life incredibly simple.
It is easy to configure, and easy to configure securely, if my own experience with it is any indication.
I appreciate the time people put into it.
It doesn’t seem like the most exciting thing to develop, but I’m thankful people do.
Whatever my own feelings about the license, I’m going to donate some money because of it’s “essentialness” to me, personally.
I would hope that, if people have issues donating here, they do take the time to donate money to other free software projects, however you define free.
Theo DeRaadt’s personality, the licensing, etc. are just not important to *me* personally. What is important to me is I’m getting an incredibly useful – essential even – software application for free, and I don’t mind throwing a little cash back in appreciation.
If the license, Theo D, or any other issue prevents people from supporting OpenSSH, please consider supporting other worthy free software projects.
“Theo DeRaadt’s personality, the licensing, etc. are just not important to *me* personally.”
It’s nice to see someone who can be professional enough to donate based on the quality and usability of a project. Hats off to you.
The point is too simple (again): people want to donate to OpenSSH project and not for OpenBSD. Dont know why, but is the general feeling about this.
Donate via PayPal. We are in 2006, not in 1990
People would like this to be about the BSD vs. the GPL license, but it’s very simple:
Do you, or your company, benefit from an open source project?
Are you contributing back to that project?
And in spite of what you think, bug reports don’t constitute “contributing back”– They’re very useful, but closed source projects typically get those for free as well.
Are you contributing back to that project?
And in spite of what you think, bug reports don’t constitute “contributing back”– They’re very useful, but closed source projects typically get those for free as well.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your intent that people who use Open Source software should contribute back to the community. However, two things must be realized.
One, users of Open Source software generally are not required to contribute back (depending on license and the user’s actions to redistribute changes).
Two, bug reports can be contributing back, depending on the user’s skill level and financial situation. I think it is grossly unfair to belittle the effort that people who submit this sort of feedback as “non contributing”.
Some may donate to OSS projects. Some may purchase it (even a home user could buy an off-the-shelf boxed Linux distro). Technically proficient may donate code improvements back. Some go out and buy books on the subject. Some submit bug reports. Some ‘merely’ promote the use of OSS as an alternative to interested friends.
I would call none of the above ‘freeloaders’ as per the article, nor as ‘non-contributers’, as you seem to be doing.
EDIT for typo repair… I probably have more… 😐
Edited 2006-03-29 15:04
My guess is that companies will be reluctant to give money to something that is involved with OpenBSD in some way. That’s like giving money to a competitor. It’s a great excuse to keep the wallet closed.
If OpenSSH were a completely independent foundation – links cut to OpenBSD – then it might be easier to get some funds in. I don’t even know whether this is possible, but it is one angle, anyway.
Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think it is particularly smart to criticize Novell and Red Hat, either. They already contribute a great deal to open source and cannot be expected to underwrite every single project. Fund-raising needs a lot of work and tact. Just asking for contributions without giving many details and then calling those who don’t pay up bastards isn’t going to raise a red cent.
And no: anyone who buys their distro or contributes in some way cannot be called a freeloader for a start.
Theo De Raadt’s attitude problem
“Theo De Raadt’s attitude problem”
Good thing Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Linus Torvards and Scott McNealy doesnt have any attitude problems.
Bill Gates was just asking me for donations for Microsoft the other day, too. I told him I’d already given a donation to Steve Ballmer. Then a week later Steve Ballmer asked me about a donation for Microsoft, and I told him I already donated to Sergey Brin. To make a long story short Steve tossed a chair at his phone and told me he would bury Google for muscling in on its charity drives.
Theo De Raadt’s attitude problem
I agree with this. This isn’t about licensing. Apache has funding. Mozilla has funding. X.org has funding. They are all very fine projects and none of them is specifically a GPL project.
What these projects do have in common is that they don’t have a talking head that lashes out at anyone and anything like a rabid pitbull for no other reason than that they are not totally absorbed in the OpenBSD philosophy.
(Theo De Raadt’s attitude problem)
If you purchase an OpenBSD CD for N amount of dollars then should not the project funds be distributed back to the the seperate program developers that ask for support so they can further the developmentment of the specific projects?
Actually I agree in this case, the BSD license is the culprit. I generally prefer BSD to GPL when someone says they are trying to create software that is truly “free”. GPL’s “viral” nature basically gives you free software, but with strings attached – namely, that the source can’t be closed off from the copyright holders.
The BSD license is better suited to a TCP/IP stack or code that you absolutely need to have universally adopted, but this means the authors should have an expectation that no code or money would be returned to them.
The problem that the OpenBSD team is experiencing is the “no strings attached” nature of the BSD License, there is no expectation that is specifically stated. The BSD license would seem to be too altruistic for their cause. Further, (correct me if I am wrong) I don’t think they can release their code GPL unless every contributor to the code re-releases code under GPL.
However, as a previous poster stated, OpenSSH has likely seen wide adoption because they chose to release their code under a BSD license. It is quite possible that had they released their code under a GPL license, it may not have experienced such a level of success. So, they are upset that they have wide adoption of their code throughout the industry without remuneration, yet they couldn’t complain about recompense if their software didn’t have such wide adoption.
I believe I can take all of a BSD licensed app, make a few changes and release it under the GPL, just as I can take a BSD licensed app, make a few changes and release it under a commercial license.
I believe I can take all of a BSD licensed app, make a few changes and release it under the GPL, just as I can take a BSD licensed app, make a few changes and release it under a commercial license.
No you can’t. There’s this little thing called copyright. If you take BSD code and put it in a commercial product, you are not relicensing that code, you’re just asking people to pay for something they can get by themselves with a little extra work.
Any changes/additions you make can, of course, be distributed under a different license.
I believe BSD allows me to close the code and only issue a binary distribution under whatever license I want, as long as I meet the other requirements of the license I can license the aggregation of my code and theirs under whatever license I want. Of course they can go get it themselves under the origianl BSD license, but they can only have my changes if they agree to my license.
I believe BSD allows me to close the code and only issue a binary distribution under whatever license I want, as long as I meet the other requirements of the license I can license the aggregation of my code and theirs under whatever license I want. Of course they can go get it themselves under the origianl BSD license, but they can only have my changes if they agree to my license.
Absolutely, but you can’t rerelease the original bsd code under a gpl license, just your additions. The new product would have different parts with different licenses.
Even that, I imagine, could be dicey. If you put gpl’ed code in in such a way that the original bsd code called it, the gpl would compel you to relicense the entire piece of code, which you’re not allowed to do. Bit of a funny deadlock :p
Edited 2006-03-29 21:47
Actually I agree in this case, the BSD license is the culprit.
You might be right that it’s the attitude that’s conveyed through the license, but what would be the obvious solution to this otherwise non-problem? That’s right, ask for donations.
They don’t want code contributions. The OpenBSD group has a very tight quality process, simply throwing code at them isn’t going to provide any value. There is a point where adding more contributors to the project produces a negative effect. What they do need are more resources for the people currently working on the project, and for companies to stop off-loading support cases to them; if you can’t support it, you should have no business in selling support for it, nor sell it in the first place. There are very real monetary costs in developing software, and maintaining the infrastructure to support that development.
Of course, it’s always much easier to turn it into a political/religious blame game to avoid having a real look at the problem.
I can understand that OpenBSD don’t want a random army of IBM cube jockeys with commit privileges, but financial support to the OpenBSD team has many more forms than companies voluntarily (since the licence makes it so) ponying up cash to keep everything going just as it always has. Now if OpenSSH were subject to copyleft-style licensing, various companies could hire principal developers and regardless of who actually owns the code, they could be sure that the work remains open even if their competitors start using it. Under a permissive licence, corporations are either going to be too tempted to hoard the source, or too worried that their competitors will do the same; thus, corporations will minimise their investment in order to minimise the advantage their competitors may get from their work.
Ignoring the effect licensing has on corporate behaviour isn’t taking the high road above some “political/religious blame game” nor is it “having a real look at the problem” – it’s pretending that corporations will do the right thing by the little man, which is hardly a realistic expectation based on popular experience. And since big companies are reaching for bigger sticks to threaten customers and competitors (patents, DRM), such an unsophisticated view of licensing isn’t exactly one I’d be comfortable openly promoting, either.
Odily enough though, IBM didn’t switch to, or improve upon for instance LSH either (which is GPL licenced, and has a great feature set aswell). AFAIK.
Now if OpenSSH were subject to copyleft-style licensing, various companies could hire principal developers and regardless of who actually owns the code, they could be sure that the work remains open even if their competitors start using it.
There’s the interesting part. Nobody really cares if someone forks OpenSSH and keeps their modifications proprietary, because no one can make them as well as the OpenBSD team.
Let’s take IBM’s perspective: they shouldn’t care if they contribute to OpenSSH coding and Sun then takes that code and hoards it, because IBM doesn’t want Sun’s code, they want OpenSSH’s. The only way Sun could produce code more useful to IMB is if IBM paid them to do so, but that requires more money than OpenSSH.
On the other hand, if IBM makes changes that are better for them (say, something operating system specific), then at least with the BSD license they can keep them private and profit more. But they still want the base platform to continue improving and it’s more practical for them to give a tiny amount to OpenSSH than to hire their own developers to keep a parallel implementation which won’t be as good anyways.
Rather than people just complaining, people could just donate even small sums of money to openBSD,
$20 X 5000 people would meet the funds openBSD needs.
I am going to take my own advise and goto:
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
They have a paypal account, if you can only afford $5 then only donate $5.
In the words of Jon ‘Maddog’ Hall, the openbsd project is too valuable to let die over a measly $100,000
Please people donate or buy the CDs. remember you don’t have to wait for the 3.9 release, you can pre-order the CDs now.
Edited 2006-03-29 13:23
Good thing Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Linus Torvards and Scott McNealy doesnt have any attitude problems.
I don’t contribute financially to their products either
Edited 2006-03-29 13:27
Those who claim that “it’s not the licence, it’s the money” are missing the bigger picture: using a licence with copyleft-style effects changes the way recipients and users of the software participate in the community.
Consider IBM: why didn’t they just fork one of the open source BSDs and sell solutions on that rather than getting into the Linux game? For quite some time, Linux wasn’t nearly as mature or versatile as various established open source BSDs. The answer: IBM was already maintaining closed source operating systems, so that wasn’t interesting to them any more, and openly contributing BSD-licensed code to projects meant that their competitors could make use of that work and not give anything back. Meanwhile, contributing to a copyleft-style project meant that other commercial users had to participate on the same terms, resulting in a more equitable situation where all participants (more or less) share ownership of what they have contributed. And where everyone has a feeling of ownership, everyone is more likely to protect their investment, and everyone is more likely to contribute something to keeping the endeavour going.
Sure, we should all be donating to keep OpenSSH going, but it cannot be denied that licensing *is* an effective tool to bring in donations of various kinds to open source projects. Does OpenSSH need manpower rather than cash? If the licence were different, perhaps the main players and many other people would have been paid to work on it full time. Licences are a good way to make shortsighted businesses see their responsibilities.
Well said. And the more free software developers acknowledge this, the less likely we will see issues like the one currently plaguing many high profile BSD licensed software.
I’ve always had problems with people saying Linux took off over BSD in the corporate world because of the license. Linux did not take off because of the license. It took off because of press and buzz words. Red hat became a company that started to sell Linux and services for Linux. Press started, and then you develop a snow ball effect. This did not occur for BSD. IBM, Dell, SGI, Sun, and Novell jumped on the bandwagon because the name Linux would be recognized by management because its name is in the rags. They could not sell BSD bacause of “BSD, What’s that?”
> It took off because of press and buzz words. Red hat
> became a company that started to sell Linux and
> services for Linux.
You forgot to mention one small thing, BSD had tons of support from the beginning. Before 1997, if you mentioned Linux in virtually any company, no-one would know what you were talking about. But there was a reasonable chance that they knew BSD, and OpenBSD’s security reputation gave even more credence to the BSD community.
IMO, the sitation reversed because of two reasons:
* Linus decided to let go control of the Linux kernel (something BSD maintainers have a hard time doing) but kept order by accepting contributions from multiple sources so that the Linux kernel never forked, it just branched into many minor modifications.
* The GPL license allowed people like Reiser and IBM to donate their intellectual property without completely giving it away. If you used their IP in your modified kernel, they would have access to your additions. It’s very easy to explain the GPL to managers as a “quid quo pro” deal — I scratch your back if you scratch mine. Businesses do that all the time when they form alliances. The BSD license is the license of altruism and charity. Businesses most are okay with charity, but they usually do it for the recognition and team building aspect. It’s much harder to give for altruistic reasons to BSD because the bean counters can make a convincing case that “if you’re going to donate 10K worth of IP, you could do a lot more good and receive more marketting benefit if you keep the IP and donate that 10K to a high profile charity.”
SAMBA, NFS, NIS, Apache, GNU, and a host of other applications that they use? Where would OpenBSD be without those contributions? It is opensource, you give some, you take a lot. That is the way it works. If you need money, turn OpenBSD into something sellable. I personally think it will make a great Firewall Appliance. Make an intuitive interface for it and rip out everything else.
OpenBSD has been a major contributor to all of the projects you’ve noted (assuming that you meant GCC when you wrote GNU) except Samba, which doesn’t even ship with OpenBSD. OpenBSD has also contributed tremendously to projects such as X.org. If you want to pick on a *nix or distro for not giving back, OpenBSD is one of the few that it makes no sense to blast.
And Cisco already does sell plenty of OpenBSD-based routers/firewalls. Theo et al aren’t in it for the money, but they do need to pay the OpenBSD bills.
“And how much money has OpenBSD donated…”
“SAMBA, NFS, NIS, Apache, GNU, and a host of other applications that they use? ”
Exscuse me but where does Theo, or anyone involved in the project, state that other OSS projects should contribute back financially to OpenBSD?
NFS and NIS was designed by Sun, btw.
SAMBA, NFS, NIS, Apache, GNU, and a host of other applications that they use? Where would OpenBSD be without those contributions? It is opensource, you give some, you take a lot.
gcc is the only one you mentioned that they are really reliant on. But you’re confusing the issue. They’re not asking for money so they can make a profit or anything. They’re asking for money because they need it to survive, it’s a simple practical matter. And, as has been pointed out, they’re not asking for money from these other projects.
That is the way it works. If you need money, turn OpenBSD into something sellable.
Gee, isn’t that exactly what all the big vendors have done? All openbsd is trying to do is fix the supply chain so that some of the money makes it’s way back into actually improving the project.
Who cares what license they use, as long as it’s open. BSD is more open than the GPL, and like anything that is open, it gets it’s share of crud and peopel stealing from it. This is not the point.
A product we all love and use is slowing down devel because of money trouble. Don’t be selfish dinks and let them die. Help out Theo by donating.
I just did:
http://www.openbsd.com/donations.html
A product we all love and use? I currently neither use nor have much of an opinion about OpenSSH or OpenBSD.
Why do you assume that everyone uses these tools?
Open Source users NOT using openssh? Please, give me a break.
HP-UX uses OpenSSH as well.
If you don’t spend money to support the things you love then the things you love will cease to exist. This holds true for everything in your life. It’s 2006. Wake up and smell the capitalism. If you don’t (financially!) support the music you love, the people who make it wont be able to make it anymore. If you don’t (financially!) support your local farmers, you won’t be able to eat fresh food. If you don’t (financially!) support open source software, you won’t have that either. Things cost money in 2006. Sad but true. Buy linux. Hey it comes with stickers sometimes! Buy OpenBSD (it certainly does come with stickers!) You don’t need to be a genius to figure out what I’m saying here. And what is it that I’m saying? Stickers are great!!
haha
I used to buy openbsd cds whenever they came out but I got so sick of theo’s crap that I stopped and don’t intend to start supporting it again until he is gone. I would bet that is the reason nobody else is willing to deal with him either. He is a big stupid prick who can’t keep his mouth shut so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that nobody wants to deal with him let alone give him money.
For a prime example of what I’m talking about check out this story.
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,…
Why would anyone want to deal with someone who is going to take their money and then shit all over them to the press?
Putting aside the license issue (which by itself is an important factor to most IT companies), we cannot deny that most businesses care only about themselves and making as much money as possible. If IBM supports GNU/Linux is because they make money from it, not because they are “good guys”. There are not much of those good guys in the IT sector. Don’t forgive that; every step a company does is in its own interest, according to its view of the reality and the inherent future.
Not because a company “says” it supports open source means they are all for open source. Take Novell, for example. They could hardly sell anything if it weren’t for its Linux adoption. They now support open source because they need it to stay in business. The open source community benefits from this relationship, but does not have to forget the reason. It’s all about money.
to be able to support openssh w/o supporting Theo. Seriously. If you think the BSD license has nothing to do with why large companies aren’t contributing, you are closing your eyes to the truth. If you think Theo’s seeming inability to keep from shit-talking, and generally running his mouth doesn’t turn off potential support at a community level, you are straight up blind. It isn’t at all puzzling that people don’t want to give money to someone who has just called them a loser, or an idiot, or has smeared a project they particularly enjoy. Theo just doesn’t seem to get this. And he’s not alone by any means – the OpenBSD community seems to be bustling with assholes. That being said, I’ll donate, but grudgingly.
It isn’t at all puzzling that people don’t want to give money to someone who has just called them a loser, or an idiot, or has smeared a project they particularly enjoy. Theo just doesn’t seem to get this.
Theo damn well does get it. He’s just unwilling to humour people to get their money. People who are mature enough to handle a little controversy continue to support the project on an individual basis and they make up a good supportive community for the project.
Companies, on the other hand, are much less motivated by feelings and more by money. If they want to continue to make money from OpenSSH (or OpenBSD or OpenFOO) then it’s just a matter of being practical and supplying a tiny sum.
If you think Theo’s seeming inability to keep from shit-talking, and generally running his mouth doesn’t turn off potential support at a community level, you are straight up blind.
Consider this, read all the thousands of comments this story has gained on all sorts of sites, and see how many of them contain insane, stupid, ill-informed, or just duplicated ideas on how Theo should run OpenBSD, annoying isn’t it? Then consider that Theo has been seeing the same insane, stupid, ill-informed or duplicated ideas for the last 10 years. I think its quite impressive that he is as restrained as he is 🙂
I can appreciate what you’re saying, and perhaps he really doesn’t care if a lot of people think he’s a jerk. My point was that he’s done a lot to breed ill will among a lot of other FOSS projects, as well as well intentioned newbies (or even non-newbies). It doesn’t surprise me that people aren’t emtying thir wallets into his pockets. That being said, I agree that there are a lot of freeloaders in the FOSS world, both at the single-user level, as well as the corporate level. It’s a damned shame, but not at all puzzling that people don’t tend to pay for something they can have for free.
So this is what people really mean when they talk about free software. Instead of paying for it up front, they try and guilt you into paying for it later.
If you don’t want to give it away for free, then don’t. It’s simple. Go ahead, change the OpenSSH license.
Don’t tell people that they owe you something because they use your free software.
“Free Software”/”Open Source” has nothing to do with payment.
haha!
Try to tell that to all the people who use free software because they don’t have to pay for it.
So this is what people really mean when they talk about free software. Instead of paying for it up front, they try and guilt you into paying for it later.
Ever hear about the difference between “free as in beer” and “free as in speech”? The english language is dumb in that it doesn’t make the distinction. Other languages have roughly the words “gratuit” and “libre”, respectively.
OpenBSD is libre, about as libre as you can get without being public domain and nobody is proposing to change that except silly people who think it should be GPLed.
However, no software is ever completely gratuit. The hilarious thing is that it’s extremely close ($100k is almost nothing in light of how widely OpenSSH is used) and yet its users still refuse to cover that tiny bit.
Yes, everyone here has heard the free as in beer/speech saying before.
What I’m saying is that OpenSSH is both definitions of free, so it’s hypocritical to try to guilt people into giving you money.
What I’m saying is that OpenSSH is both definitions of free,
Umm, no it’s not. If the project had no money, it would not be able to develop the things it does. The fact that it is downloadable gratuit is more a function of its libre-ness. But this whole campaign is an attempt to get enough money so that they don’t have to sacrifice that. Same reason why you can only get a full install iso by buying the cds.
It makes me sad to think that so many people support open source development with their time and money while people like you go around freeloading and claiming that it all just appears magically for your pleasure
Seriously, why do we need all this licensing talk?
If OpenSSH were under the GPL, they would not be making one penny more.
If you want to talk licensing, talk about open vs. closed. If OpenSSH were closed-source, then they would be selling it and making money. BSD vs. GPL has NOTHING to do with this.
Maybe all the Linux zealots are just lashing out because they feel guilty.
Can we have ONE *BSD-related news item that’s not hijacked by all these morons?
Seriously, why do we need all this licensing talk?
Because lots of people think that’s the core of the problem, me included.
If OpenSSH were under the GPL, they would not be making one penny more
You don’t know that. What I see, is that prominent GPL products asking for donations get them pretty quickly as soon as they ask.
Surely OpenBSD/SSH will get donations too, but it seems to be far slower, people are more cautious.
BSD vs. GPL has NOTHING to do with this
Of course not, that’s just BSD flaws that are the problem. People cite what could be done with GPL because it’s free too, and the most used among free licenses.
Maybe all the Linux zealots are just lashing out because they feel guilty.
I know I don’t feel guilty AT ALL.
Can we have ONE *BSD-related news item that’s not hijacked by all these morons?
You sound EXACTLY like Theo, calling us morons, and you want us to feel guilty ? Give me a break.
Theo is sh*tting on GPL and other FOSS devs everytime he can. Look, no later that TODAY, he AGAIN shit on FOSS outside of BSD license :
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/03/20/2050223.shtml
I can’t believe this guy. Being a very good, dedicated, innovative programmer is the only thing saving him to my eyes.
But I won’t feel guilty, sure not.
Seriously, why do we need all this licensing talk?
Because lots of people think that’s the core of the problem, me included.
Please explain. All you said was “Linux is GPL and they have no funding issues”. Correlation does not imply causation.
Explain how the GPL would make Sun, Cisco, Apple and IBM throw a few grand towards OpenSSH.
I am going to take my own advise and goto:
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
They have a paypal account, if you can only afford $5 then only donate $5.
hmm… i’m boycotting paypal (see paypalsucks.com if you want to know why), their “secure credit card transactions” aren’t secure enough for me, and i have no idea what “Cheques” and “IBAN + BIC” are… i guess i can’t donate…
“and i have no idea what “Cheques” and “IBAN + BIC” are… i guess i can’t donate…”
Cheques are, uh, checks. You know, the ones you pay with. IBAN is international bank transfers.
IBAN is actually International Bank Account Number. It is an agreed format for representing a bank account so that it is unique – the IBAN identifies the country, bank and account number to facilitate international payments.
BIC is Bank Identifier Code, which is used by SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), a global network for making payments. A BIC identifies a bank (and sometimes also particular branches of a bank).
Sorry, but I happened to know this 🙂
I’m completely broke. Seriously, I am. Stupid loans take too long to come!
But I’ve left instructions on my project to direct all contributions to OpenBSD, not that I get any anyway :/.
Seriously though, I could care less about OpenBSD, but OpenSSH is definitely something that’s very important. And it’s important that security conscious developers are working on it.
blah…blah…blah
Summing it up: Whether or not you like/love/hate/never-heard-of OpenBSD, whether or not you think Richard Stallman is sexy or Theo is “to die for”, if you think OpenSSH has been a good thing for the community at large, why not PayPal a few bucks over towards the OpenBSD guys. It will only hurt for a little while.
The biggest problem with private individual contributions is that they aren’t reliable. Security is one of those things that one cannot say is ‘done.’ OpenSSH will require an endowment or a benefactor, which essentially means a party or a group of parties with significant capital that have a vested interest in its development would need to pony up. Even if they can drum up $50k from individual donations that won’t go very far if it’s treated as anything more than supplemental income when spread across the number of people accruing development expenses.
That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t donate a few bucks, since anything greater than zero will be more helpful than zero, it’s just that a long term means of securing income for the project is in order, or we’ll be back here again in N months where N is small.
I think RedHat, Sun, and maybe another donating a small but significant yearly amount would be best. Why put it on one companies shoulders
.
Actually, the best solution may be to cut Theo out of the picture entirely. OpenSSH is under a BSD license. Why shouldn’t RedHat and other interested Linux vendors create a new GPL’d project using the current OpenSSH code base?
I mean, when you have hemorrhoid problems, you don’t work *with* them… you get *rid* of them, right?
Actually, the best solution may be to cut Theo out of the picture entirely. OpenSSH is under a BSD license. Why shouldn’t RedHat and other interested Linux vendors create a new GPL’d project using the current OpenSSH code base?
I mean, when you have hemorrhoid problems, you don’t work *with* them… you get *rid* of them, right?
Yeah, Theo is such a hemorrhoid for giving everybody a fanstatic product for free. Go jump in a f*cking lake!
Anybody is free to fork OpenSSH at any time but talking about it is pointless unless you actually do it. Furthermore, nobody from OpenBSD will give a rats ass because the code is open for a reason. When Redhat produces a better version that people actually want to use (and I fully believe they’re not capable of it) then Theo will stop asking for money because obviously nobody would need OpenSSH anymore.
Kamper,
I’m not saying that they necessarily should do it.
I am asking if it might not be the best thing to do.
I *am* asserting that Theo is doing his best to be a hemorrhoid problem, though. Which is unfortunate, because OpenSSH is one hell of a product, and OpenBSD is not too bad either, inside of its niche.
There is no reason for him to act as he does, other than that he seems to want to act that way.
I do agree with you though. Unless it happens it’s just a pie in the sky idea.
I do have a feeling that Theo may just push things far enough that it *does* happen. And I have to admit that I will probably miss the entertainment a little. 😉
I am asking if it might not be the best thing to do.
Well, if it is, I wouldn’t argue against it. I find it hard to believe that redhat could maintain an ssh implementation by themselves for anywhere near the paltry sum that it would take to get Theo to shut up.
Sure, he’s unpleasant, but that’s one of the poorest reasons I can think of for creating a fork. Thick skin or money will solve the problem much better
And thanks for not responding in kind to my rather inflamatory previous response
What I’m wondering is this. If the community responds positively, what happens when he comes back again with an even bigger chip on his shoulder?
The community is still recovering from David Dawes’ reign of terror as leader of the XFree86 team.
No one can deny the value of his (David’s) contributions to the community. But it’s also hard to defend his attitude after his head grew so big that the community could no longer afford to support it. And it has been hard to recover from the damage caused by his rather “Cathedral” attittude towards X server development.
I’m not big on forks, myself. But in the XFree86 case, the community was too resistant to the idea of forking for its own good. (And until the fork actually happened it was just a pie in the sky idea. 😉
> And thanks for not responding in kind to my rather inflamatory previous response
Well, well, well. It wasn’t too long ago on Slashdot that a story was posted indicating that while about 90% of internet email readers think they got the sender’s emotional intent right, only about 50% of the time were they actually right. I can’t remember the numbers for sure, but it *was* something shocking. And I thought to myself: This explains everything that I have ever been confused about in my internet conversations. So hey, I took it to heart! 😉
What I’m wondering is this. If the community responds positively, what happens when he comes back again with an even bigger chip on his shoulder?
The community is still recovering from David Dawes’ reign of terror as leader of the XFree86 team.
Valid concern. But just because there’s been one burn, does that mean we should give up on funding open source software altogether? Plus, the X.org split didn’t happen until after the problems. I don’t think Theo’s been unreasonable yet (in terms of money, not attitude) so forking doesn’t really have a point right now.
As to whether or not he would become unreasonable, I think that he’s conducted himself with more integrity than any other project leader you can mention. OpenSSH happened because there were no good free alternatives. CARP happened because of the mere possibility of a patent issue, even though Cisco gave word of mouth not to sue for VRRP implementations. PF happened because the previous firewall was slightly non-free. They’re still on apache 1.x because the new apache license is too restrictive. OpenBSD has the strongest resistance of any project to binary blobs. This guy doesn’t care about getting rich, he acts on solid principle and cares about producing proper code so I think if you can’t count on that, we’re in much bigger trouble than OpenBSD’s in right now.
If he does get more annoying, you can just ignore him, right?
Edited 2006-03-29 22:29
For most uses LSH 2.0.2 might be an alternative: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/archive/ it also supports Kerberos autentication (and even SRP, according to the docs), to enable libwrap though (here) it needed:
LDFLAGS=”-lnsl” ./configure –with-tcpwrapers
(Which is build-in to OpenSSH per default IIRC.)
Maybe it’s less secure, or atleast it doesn’t priv-sep. However on systems that support POSIX.1e capabilities, one could probably hack root-dropping into it utilizing that.
The biggest problem with private individual contributions is that they aren’t reliable
I agree! My request is also valid for groups, institutions, companies. If you are IBM, you can change “a few bucks” to “a few thousand bucks”, otherwise the message is the same.
Very well said. Who does it hurt?
I think you are just hearing all the cheapskates plead poverty. 5 bucks is not going to break ANYONE’S bank who can afford a computer and lives not in abject poverty.
i will join the others in saying the reason i don’t pay them is because i dont pay for any free software. well once, back in the day i bought a box copy of corel gnu+linux, but that was quite some time ago.
they offer the bits for nothing under a free software license. thanks for the free bits. but, remember, you gave it away for free. and we are not required to pay. i use SSH daily. would i pay for it? no. why? because i dont have to. its not that its not useful, i just wont pay for it.
gcc is quite possibly the most useful peice of free sofware around. did you donate to that project? now they get a shit load of funding, but does that matter really? its more important than ssh and i wouldnt give them any money either.
now i have mulled over giving money to the fsf, which i think is more important than the ssh project. but its just how i prioritize things i guess. i am not opposed to giving money to cool projects, but don’t beg for it and try to make people feel guilty about it. you gave it away, thanks though.
Bah, I retract, I just noticed your last para. Sorry.
Edited 2006-03-29 17:34
See, but these are not “arguments”. You’re just a pimple on the butt of soceity. A nothing-loser who takes and never gives. That’s your right, but god, what a worthless piece of shite. Glad that gives you a warm feeling inside, turd.
It seems to me it’s not so much of an issue with companies leeching, but a lack of awareness of the need for funding.
I would think a polite, thoughtful fund-raising campaign on the part of OpenBSD (done by someone with a bit more tact than Theo perhaps?) would work wonders. NetBSD did a fund raising campaign a while back that was thoughtful, polite, and brought in the cash they were looking for.
It’s a matter of setting expectations, telling people what you would like. Making contacts with big users of the technology and soliciting donations.
It’s one thing to make the rounds, ask for money, recieve nothing, and lament about people taking your work and giving nothing back.
It’s quite another when you do something, not actively solicite donations, and then throw your arms up in dispair when modest checks don’t roll in.
I’m not saying that either of those cases are what’s happening, but if OpenBSD has made a concerted effort for fundraising, I’m not aware of it.
OpenBSD isn’t the… warm and fuzziest of projects, in terms of public relations, and perhaps this is a symptom of that. But it’s a pretty simple fix I would think.
As for the big Linux vendors and other OS vendors, I really don’t think they consider OpenBSD much of a competitive threat.
Some people are all about their work, and not a lot about a broader reality. You can see this when people aren’t interested in doing the work for a grant proposal, but find that they cannot conduct their research without some funding. They eventually pawn the work of finding funding off on someone willing to put up with the inconvenient and sometimes intellectually-insulting requirements of grown-up land.
If one Open Source project want to use another then they should go for it but if a commercial item wants to use an open source project then they should have to pay for it!
In the case of Cisco, as much as they ask for their product they should fork over SOMETHING.
Its a prime case of exploitation of the open source community…thats my mini rant.
-nX
If you want your code to be free for noncommercial use then license it as such. This was all the rage in academia for some time. If you don’t you aren’t being exploited, you’re simply failing to look out for your interests. It’s like claiming exploitation when you listen to a girl’s problems every day for two months and she still won’t engage in coitus with you.
I’m surprised so many people say that being GPL vs being BSD licensed makes no diference in the money a project makes. However, I do notice that both MySQL and Troltech’s QT are making money even if they’re GPL licensed. Why, well because you can’t just close the code on any of these projects and if you want to make a commercial(propietary) project from code they developed then the propietary developer’s must pay. This case is also true for the Quake engines created by ID Software.
Now imagine what would have happened if OpenSSH was a separate project from OpenBSD and released as GPL. They could charge something like 10k per non-free derivated project and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Don’t you think? And before you answer, remember that this is about the same amount of money IDSoft charges for the original Quake, as they say; “the network code alone is worth that.”
They could also make a series of frontends that could make easier the administration of ssh servers and charge for those too. And people would probably buy them.
I went poking around OpenBSD’s site, and I found a fundamental difference between OpenBSD and the other BSDs, in that I couldn’t find any reference to an OpenBSD formal organization/foundation/corporation.
FreeBSD and NetBSD both have non-profit foundations which cover financing. They have boards of directors, and all of the transparency that comes with responabile non-profit boards. OpenBSD could really use this, I think. Either incorporated as a non profit in the US or Canada (I’m unfamiliar with Canadian non-profit statutes). Currently, donation cheques are written out to “Theo”. While I don’t think anybody thinks that he’s taking the checks and converting them into payments on a Hummer, the lack of a little bit of formality and formalized fund raising process (and I’m not talking about a process that requires cover sheets for your TPS reports) may be a hinderance.
I just found a thread where it was discussed, and it looks like it went nowhere. I wonder what it would take to get it going.
I went poking around OpenBSD’s site, and I found a fundamental difference between OpenBSD and the other BSDs, in that I couldn’t find any reference to an OpenBSD formal organization/foundation/corporation.
FreeBSD and NetBSD both have non-profit foundations which cover financing. They have boards of directors, and all of the transparency that comes with responabile non-profit boards. OpenBSD could really use this, I think. Either incorporated as a non profit in the US or Canada (I’m unfamiliar with Canadian non-profit statutes). Currently, donation cheques are written out to “Theo”. While I don’t think anybody thinks that he’s taking the checks and converting them into payments on a Hummer, the lack of a little bit of formality and formalized fund raising process (and I’m not talking about a process that requires cover sheets for your TPS reports) may be a hinderance.
I just found a thread where it was discussed, and it looks like it went nowhere. I wonder what it would take to get it going.
It hasn’t happened because everybody thinks it’s a good idea and is more than happy to suggest it, but too lazy to get off theirs duffs and make it happen. Theo and crew are coders, not paper pushers and they deem their time better spent on coding. From what I hear, it really is a significant amount of work.
I’m sure if somebody actually went to the trouble of registering a non-profit in some country (US seems most, err, profitable) and wrote to Theo saying “I’ve got a non-profit ready to go, all you have to know is that funds will be flowing into your bank account. You don’t have to do paperwork or deal with government types”, he’d be a lot more receptive.
The other thing is, he’s not asking for charity. He’s asking for companies to look after their own interests by investing a little in a project they depend on.
It hasn’t happened because everybody thinks it’s a good idea and is more than happy to suggest it, but too lazy to get off theirs duffs and make it happen. Theo and crew are coders, not paper pushers and they deem their time better spent on coding. From what I hear, it really is a significant amount of work.
I serve on a board right now as treasurer (commercial), and it’s not that much work. And calling the work paper pushing I don’t think is fair. In any organization, there’s always some paperwork that needs to be done. Every entity, either individual or incorporated, has some paperwork associated with it. For example, if Theo is taking donations in his name, then he has to account for donations in some way so that he doesn’t run afoul of the Canadian tax authorties. You need to do it anyway, and setting up a system can simplify the process so the “necessary evil” doesn’t get in the way. Also, it helps with transparency, so everyone knows you’re running an honest and tight ship.
And as for starting one up, I’d be happy to do it.
And as for starting one up, I’d be happy to do it.
That’d be fantastic
. As said before though, the only thing that matters is whether or not somebody actually *does* it. Let me know when you’ve got it up and going and I will be the first to donate, just because I’d appreciate it so much 
Howdy
When I read things like this it makes me sad, the whole point of the BSD licence is to allow any one to use and abuse their code and the only restriction is that they can`t say it`s their own code.
This is the reason that mr utopia 2206 (R Stallman) scares me, the REAL world doesn`t stack up to some pipe dream about everyone sharing money/code/food/wealth and sometimes you need to have a gun (proprietary licencing) near by if someone wants to have a little one way sharing.
But honestly Theo needs to pull his head out of his backside and stop complaining, I just wish this article was all about how Theo proactively saw a problem, fixed it and then describes how he did it all with a little humor thrown in.
This is just another incident that closed source people will use to demonstrate how unviable open source software is thanks Theo!
Whoever keeps spamming all of the mailing lists I’m on with “Donate, you owe us” posts, and now spamming OSNews with the same drivel needs to get a life. Now, I’m reading official positions on this “campaign” by Theo himself (ass) and it’s disgusting me.
If you wanted money, you shouldn’t have used an OSS model. Period. You have 0 right to bitch and moan, it’s your own doing.
At the same time, you absolutely have the right to sit there and call these companies *insert tons of foul statements*. You do NOT have the right to use their mailing lists for YOUR purposes. I’m REALLY sick of demands to donate filling my mailbox. I’m tempted to fork OpenSSH and make it spit out “Theo is an ASS” every time you connect with it. I’m starting to think the same goes for most of the users too (at least the vocal ones.)
If you wanted money, you shouldn’t have used an OSS model. Period. You have 0 right to bitch and moan, it’s your own doing.
Argghh!! People still don’t understand. He doesn’t want money. He wants to keep on hacking open code but unfortunately he needs a very small amount of money to be able to do that. Take away the OSS model and he’s got no reason to be doing anything anymore.
If he’d stop blowing off his feet, he’d have no problem. DARPA was funding things, he royally screwed that up.
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,…
Yes, he has free speech. If you’re going to badmouth the people who feed you, you deserve what you get. Idealism is wonderful, but some people live in the real world. Don’t bitch and moan just because you can’t fit in.
Again, it’s his OWN doing. Let him learn to interact with society, don’t bail him out this time. He’s off in la-la the asshole land currently imo.
“If he’d stop blowing off his feet, he’d have no problem. DARPA was funding things, he royally screwed that up.”
Yeah, because shutting up and not speaking your mind is a great thing. It worked out really well in East Germany.
I suppose you didn’t read my original post. The part about free speech? I respect his right to say what he wishes, but at the same time, if you condemn those who provide your funding, don’t moan when it is taken away.
Somehow I think he could have been more tactful than stating (from the article I posted):
“In that story, the resident of Calgary, Alberta, said the U.S.-led war against Iraq “sickens” him. De Raadt also said he was uncomfortable taking money from the U.S. military, but “I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn’t get built.””
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,…
So, lesson is -> you can say what you want, but don’t expect funding to stick around when you put your foot into your ass, take it out, and then shove it down your throat. Theo at his usual finest.
Looks like this didn’t work out so well:
“”We’ll just go back to donations or try to get other grants,” he said. “Maybe now that we’ve actually lost the DARPA grant, people will know enough about us that we can go apply for [other] grants.””
Yea, who wants to donate to somebody who tells companies they suck (Sun) for not donating (when they have donated….) and who publically says he’ll just *have to* take their money even though everything they do he disagrees with? Would you? I certainly wouldn’t, nor would any of the other business owners I know. I suspect if you say yes, you’re full of dogpoo as well.
” Isuspect if you say yes, you’re full of dogpoo as well.”
I suspect you dont know what you’re talking about.
“Argghh!! People still don’t understand.”
Ah, but you see, these people dont WANT to understand. All they want to do is to whine endlessly about how much better the GPL is (wich it isnt, at least not for this problem) or what an ass Theo is (I guess they want Barney the Dinosaur making their OS so that noone is offended) or some other pointless drivel. They have no interest in actually understanding the problem or helping out.
Read the last question/response. This is an interview with Theo.
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/03/20/2050223.shtml
To save those who don’t want to load that page time:
“NF: Lots of hardware vendors use OpenSSH. Have you got anything back from them?
TdR: If I add up everything we have ever gotten in exchange for our efforts with OpenSSH, it might amount to $1,000. This all came from individuals. For our work on OpenSSH, companies using OpenSSH have never given us a cent. What about companies that incorporate OpenSSH directly into their products, saving themselves millions of dollars? Companies such as Cisco, Sun, SGI, HP, IBM, Siemens, a raft of medium-sized firewall companies — we have not received a cent. Or from Linux vendors? Not a cent.
Of course we did not set out to create OpenSSH for the money — we purposely made it completely free so that the “telnet infrastructure” of the 1980s would die. But it sure is sad that none of these companies return even a fraction of value in kind.
If you want to judge any entity particularly harshly, judge Sun. Yearly they hold interoperability events, for NFS and other protocols, and they include SSH implementation tests as well. Twice we asked them to cover the travel and accommodation costs for a developer to come to their event, and they refused. Considering that their SunSSH is directly based on our code, that is just flat out insulting. Shame on you Sun, shame, shame, shame.
I will say it here — if an OpenSSH hole is found that applies to SunSSH, Sun will not be informed. Or maybe that has happened already.”
—————————————————-
#1 – It’s not true he’s never gotten a cent from the companies listed earlier in the article.
#2 – Do you really want to support a guy who says things like that? No. End of discussion.
!!!
BSD
Bad Sofware Developpers
Badly Squeeezing for Dollars
🙂
Sorry, I could not help it!
!!!
!!!
Beware! Some Despicable
BaStarDs sons of UNIX
Begging for Some Dollars!
—
This one was bad at all neither !
—
Yep.. its true.. No exuse.
Only perhaps these:
– Montepulziano d’Abruzzio ” Denominazione d’Origine Contallata”, La Rinalda 2004 – 1 Bottle
– Vitoria “Gran Reserva” 1997, Valdepenas, denominacion de Origen, Tempranillo – 2 Bottles
– Cotes du Rhone 2004, Denomination d’origine – 2 Bottles
– some still to come…
that we are finishing here !!!
It is being a great night here! We have also been trying the DesktopBSD 1.0 distro. Pretty good actually… Not all the good stuff is Linux…
!!!
…shut the hell up?
I see 384 useless comments on this matter on Slashdot, which will be whining on for days.. and a 117 more here on this forum, repeating the same crap, and before all that 362 similar useless comments on Undeadly…
And how much donations were received, while everyone interested in this matter was brainlessly blathering about it? Only a few, from individuals, if you review the cvs entries of the donation page (http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html)…
Either donate or quit bitching.
Either donate or quit bitching.
Pre-ordering a 3.9 CD (comes out May 1st) is a good way to help.
I see 384 useless comments on this matter on Slashdot, which will be whining on for days.. and a 117 more here on this forum, repeating the same crap, and before all that 362 similar useless comments on Undeadly…
It’s not your bandwidth. Don’t read the posts. You might have a case for undeadly…
And how much donations were received, while everyone interested in this matter was brainlessly blathering about it? Only a few, from individuals, if you review the cvs entries of the donation page (http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html)…
I bought the 3.9 cds. Do I have your permission to talk now?
If someone forgot under their better-than-anything-pants-license-spree: we neet money to live.
Even if they work under free license, they still have the freedom to be a beggar. The ugly fact is that we have real life beggars, too who don’t even contribute to anything than to themselves and the bottle of that Vermouth.
At least this time the beggars have a bigger reason to beg for help: OpenSSH. Nobody cares about the personal lives of the devs! It’s the product and service that people are concerned when it stops being.
My favourite, Microsoft, has a nice way of circumvent this type of a problem: software for money. As we can see, the level of proprietaryness of OpenSSH has raised to something where the actual developers are being the only competent ones and they actually can and do ask for money. If I was an IBM or Apple tycoon, I’d donate for the sake of being a realist! Freeloader is a correct word here. The license has nothing to do with this, because it’s the people who are in “hunger”. No time is actually free!
I like to freeload myself, but that’s not a problem until the support for the programs I use vanishes (DC++, anyone?). The big ones have lots of money… but if they dont have it to support the secure shell that IS AN ACTUAL PART of their service… their business models have the big OpenHole (meaning: they use OSS for business without contracts with the real developers. Risky business so to speak.) Like any “Free” software made commercial by third parties has. MySQL, for example, is totally different from this and they know better.
What part of GNU PL or BSD license prevents developers from starving? This is a real issue in the whole World of “Freedom”.
BSD = Anyone can use (commercially or not commercially) for free without ever giving anything back. This is the definition of the BSD license itself. Nothing to see here, move along.
Also, if openSSH wasnt free to reuse (with no obligation, moral or actual) some other package might very well have been the one to grow into a defacto standard.
On other platforms (such as Windows) OpenSSH isn’t as common as programs like PuTTY, at least around here.
And no, PuTTY isn’t based on OpenSSH code…
“On other platforms (such as Windows) OpenSSH isn’t as common as programs like PuTTY, at least around there.”
I didnt know Putty was a server.