Developments in the *BSD area, such as the OpenSSH project, have greatly benefited Linux. By the same token, Linux companies have funded a lot of work on software like GCC and Wine that is also used on *BSD systems. Read the editorial at OSOpinion.
The Neglected BSD Stepchildren
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
(offtopic, sorry)
Would anyone consider doing a review of FreeBSD 5.0 RC1? I would love to hear what others think about it. If I had more time (and more a little more writing talent 😉 I would do one myself. Just a thought.
Pat
Granted, the BSDs do not get the hype, Linux has, but think about it – does that really hurt? Hardly.
IMNSHO, that’s a good thing_TM.
As to usage, IBM has been using NetBSD excessively over the last couple of years, using it as their OS of choice for a variety of their terminals. Web services rely on FreeBSD’s rock solid stability and so did (and does) Apple. And OpenBSD is the OS of choice when it comes to security.
The only thing missing is “giving back to the community”. Well, at least Apple does it, and so does IBM – they just don’t talk about it.
You wouldn’t happen to know where you can go about building code for those IBM terminals running NetBSD would you? I have a friend who has one and he’s had trouble trying to get tools and what not so he can build newer versions of applications for it.
“It’s no secret that many companies aren’t comfortable or willing to use the GNU General Public License (GPL) on which the Linux kernel, and much of the supporting software for Linux, is based… However, BSD-licensed code allows companies to do pretty much whatever they want.”
I don’t understand this point.
Does anyone know of a good executive summary of the differences among the various licenses?
GPL prevents anyone from steeling the code. If you take the code and add something to it or change it in any way, you have to make _all_ of that public to the person to whom you deliver or sell the resulting binaries.
BSD does not set any restrictions. Like Apple, you can take the code developed by other people, add your own stuff on top of it and sell the results, _without_ having to open any of your own work to anyone.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/index….
It is my understanding that code licensed under the BSD license can be modified, distributed, and/or sold with no restrictions as long as you keep the copyright notice(s) of the software that you are using.
Code licensed under the GPL requires that source code be made available to any binary software released (although this can be for a fee). Any code using GPL’ed code automatically inherits the GPL license; this is why Mr. Ballmer at Microsoft describes the GPL as “cancerous” as if you are not careful you may be obligated to disclose proprietary information when using the GPL.
I’m probably missing some important points, but that is the gist of it. More info available here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html
Jon. I don’t know of an “executive summary” of the differences. (but…)
The GPL license requires that that source is available for your users. Not neccesarily included, but available. You can even charge for S&H if you want.
The GPL license also requires “that all the released improved versions be free software.” No closed-source products can be derived from a GPL product as I understand (I could be mistaken).
The BSD license is less restrictive (more freedom for the source code, less guarentees (sp, blah) that it will remain free in the future). It requires that the authors name be included in the documentation and/or source of any derivative programs.
Here’s a pretty good plain-language explanation of the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Same thing for the BSD license:
http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsd/license.html
Once again, I’m not professing to be an expert on these licenses by any amount, but I hope this helps clear it up a little more.
Pat
GPL prevents anyone from steeling the code.
Without any inclination of starting a flame-war …
It’s not “stealing” if it is explicitly allowed to take it, that is, source code under a BSD license.
You wouldn’t happen to know where you can go about building code for those IBM terminals running NetBSD would you?
Unfortunately, no. IBM never disclosed it (to us, at least).
Excellent article you posted, very very interesting!
I think I got this right:
GPL–You can only charge the cost of the medium on which your software was transmitted. Ie: the cost of a CD or packaging, or the bandwidth cost of a download. Any changes the user makes to it must be made available to the program’s originator & distributed freely. Any GPL libraries can only be used in free software (as in no $$$.) Users can freely distribute your software as long as they distribute it in its whole form, unmodified.
(summary: not for proprietary use.)
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html#5
LGPL–You can charge whatever you like for the software if you want. You can use the functions defined in LGPL libraries in your proprietary source code and keep your own code private. The only time you have to make your code public is if you make changes to the LGPL libraries themselves. This is obviously a less restrictive license since it allows you to create proprietary closed-source software.
(summary: may be ok for proprietary use–depending on program needs.)
BSD–totally free to do whatever you want with the software.
This option grants the most freedom to the software creator and the software user.
(summary: the license for idealists & philanthropists.)
Then again Gatling was a philanthropist who figured that his machine gun was so horrible that people would see the futility of war–yeah, we sure did.
see here for more info:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html#5
you can charge as much as you want for gpl software, you just have to make the source availible to anyone you distribute the software to.
they can then take it and offer it up for free on their website if they so desire, but this doesnt stop you from putting a price tag on the copy you are selling
i would think the GPL is more free. free in the sense of freedom, no one can ever hide changes to it. when you GPL some code you free it forever. just imagine if Apple used something GPL’d we’d all be running OSX but, such is life. well, you can hide changes as long as you don’t distribute. also you can make money with GPL. -_- k, have fun
You’re right in theory you can still sell GPL code: it works for special purpose development for a client.
But in practice, this also mean that if you wan’t to sell your GPL code to many clients, you can only sell it for dirt cheap money otherwise a client will upload your code to a FTP site and very few people will buy your code..
To be able to sell it, you need to bundle it with something else:
– hardware, this can work
– support, this may work, but the better the software, the less support you will sell: cleary there is a problem here..
So even if you CAN sell GPL code, it is very difficult to make a real profit with it.
Linux distribution are an exemple of selling GPL code: in fact they really sell their integration of various GPL code, which explains that every distribution has its own installer and has different packaging tools even if they share the same packaging format.
This also explain why customers suffer from classic Linux problem: I have two piece of hardware A and B: A only works wit distro X, but B only works with distro Y..
Still very few Linux distribution make real money and I suspect that with the increase of broaband subscribers, the number of Linux’s boxes sold will decrease..
free in the sense of freedom, no one can ever hide changes to it.
See its just a difference in opinion basically. You say code is free by not allowing to be used for anything not-free. I say its free because you can do (almost) whatever you want with the code (BSD license). From my point of view, the GPL imposes more restrictions with what you can and can’t do with source code. You may claim that the restrictions make the software more free, but I respectfully disagree.
Pat (sincerely hoping this discussion remains peaceful
And mind you, this may be insulting to some, but it’s the truth. An executive summary is a quick overview of the important points using 7th grade English and short simple sentences within reason. If buzzwords must be used, they SHOULD be briefly explained (but often aren’t). Executive summaries are for those who need to go from utterly clueless to somewhat informed in a very short amount of time. Often they are printed on note cards, papers, or downloaded to PDA’s before important executive meetings so that he/she can read over it in 5-15 minutes and not sound clueless when he/she goes in.
That was off-topic enough, I think.
–JM
But, you see… thats just the point… they wouldnt have
if they hadnt had the bsd code to work with they did… under the licence they did… they would have either looked for another solution or wrote their code from scratch…
gpl wouldnt have given ~them~ the freedom they needed to make ~their~ designs a reality
idealism aside both licences have their good points and bad… there is plenty of room in the world for both
>i would think the GPL is more free. free in the sense of freedom,
Well, GPL it does take away some essential freedom, the freedom to make properitary changes to the code, and the freedom to charge as much as one want for the program.
especially considering im more inclined to agree with the bsd perspective..
but it does technichally allow you to charge what you want
(at least assuming people are willing to pay it)
and the freedom to charge as much as one want for the program
RTFM
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
…or just consider the fact that RedHat, Suse, Lindows,
Slackware, and many others charge what they wish for GNU/Linux.
the freedom to make properitary changes
that is simply the ability to restrict your customers freedom