“This page isn’t here to debate whether OpenSource Software(OSS) is high quality or not. The majority of programmers already know that OSS is responsible for the bulk of today’s most superior software. In addition, BSD licensed software is known to be generally even Higher in quality than most other types of OSS. This page is here to explain how BSD and similar licenses hurt the OSS community more than they can ever help it, and why developers should use GNU licenses or similar instead.” Read the editorial at FreeWebs. Our Take: Yeah… right… 😛
How BSD Hurts OpenSource
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Stallman created the FSF which is the Free Software Foundation. They believe in Open Source software…source is available.
ESR is the one that people should hate if they need to hate GPL people. He started GNU, decided that any software should be Free as in Freedom, and possibly in beer.
Neither have any problem with charging for software, just how you handle the source code…
I noticed no one uttered the word “Nazi” yet so there it is.
After all no pointless “beat the dead horse some more” religious debate is complete without someone being called a nazi 🙂
> Ok, well this furthered my not wanting to touch anythng
> GPL/GNU. Anyone else thinking it’s time to start with
> FreeBSD and make a 100% MIT/BSD liscensed OS.
The *BSDs are almost there, so there’s no need to create another fork. OpenBSD in particular has been conducting a license audit of their base system for the last year or more. It’s not just eliminating GPL code, it’s also finding unclear licenses or code without a license at all (more problematic than you might think). Check their CVS under src/usr/gnu – there’s surprisingly little left there now, mainly GCC and Sendmail. TenDRA and (I think?) the OpenWatcom compiler are being worked on as potential replacements for GCC but have a while to go yet – main issue is portability. I’m not aware of any BSD Sendmail replacements.
I’m in favour of this for the system essentials but I think it’d be getting a bit silly to start coding replacements for qt/KDE, Samba and the like. There are more important things to be working on.
This place is truly going down the drain. What’s worse is that people here get moderated for seemingly benign comments while the truly hateful ones are allowed to stand so long as they are aligned with the sensitivities of the moderators.
No OpenSource software, licensed under BSD, will EVER be able to compete with it’s proprietary equivalent.
Those silly Apache guys. Don’t they know they need to switch to the GPL before they’ll be successful?
Uhm. You people have your facts all wrong.
Stallman started the FSF and GNU, and wrote the GPL. He’s the one you need to hate (although personally I admire him greatly). Stallman is Free Software.
Eric Raymond is Open Source. He doesn’t like the GPL; he is probably more on your side. However, it kinda seems like, as opposed to Stallman, Raymond has not coded anything substantial. (Come on, Fetchmail???)
I think the evil penguin is what hurt all of us.
I say kill the penguin and stop using GPL infected software.
Why would we stop evolution of software development???? Support BSD!!!! Kill the Penguin ¤#¤!¤%&¤&¤%
This is where you BSDers get carried away. If you had a mental age of more than 12. you would realize that both the Linux and BSD teams have helped each other–Linux has led companies to consider Free solutions, many of which turned out to be BSD.
Zealots make me sick. Think about it. You’re quibbling over some tiny block of text that most of you, seeing as you’re obviously not kernel developers, will never be affected by. The majority of GPL or BSD software will never be good enough to steal or even consider appropriating. The stuff that is is developed by people who actually put reason behind their licensing and not blind “freer-than-thou” raving.
Have you ever seen Life of Brian? You remind me of the two revolutionary groups that kill each other.
ha!
i’m actually reminded of a startrek episode where two camps entire lives were dedicated to killing each other.
then the next day came, the dead came back to life, and they started all over…plotting to kill and eventually killing their enemy all over again.
infinite loop.
i’ve never actually met a freebsd admin in person who was so anti-gnu/linux.
it makes me suspect that a lot in this forum are actually microsoft sympathizers/loyalist just trying to start shit 😉
*ducks*
*runs*
😉
It makes sence that this is the entire reason for having multiple licenses. I have read many of these licenses and some of them are VERY similar yet change one small aspect to make it viable for a particular piece of software. For example, The BSD and MIT licenses are very similar, yet different developers use the one they choose based on what they need specifically for that piece of software.
I understand the point of his article was to sway BSDers into GNUers so that the OSS community could gain from the addition of the ‘revised’ software. But to me thats like saying ‘You can be in our free software club, but ONLY if you make YOUR software free too’.
If some dev’s want to make their code available without restriction then more power to them. I will be happy to give them their credit while I include their code in software. And when people comment on how well a certain aspect of the software works, they can thank the developer that made it possible by making his code available without restrictions. This will be that coders 15 min of fame. Which might be all he wanted in the first place.
So for those who want to make their code free, they have all the options in the world on just how ‘free’ they want to make it.
It makes sence to me anyway 😛
ps. You cant STEAL something that I’m GIVING to you. DUH!
“you would realize that both the Linux and BSD teams have helped each other–Linux has led companies to consider Free solutions, many of which turned out to be BSD.”
…And what’s more, it’s a well known fact that *BSD runs Linux code better and faster than… Linux. Imagine that. Linux (and by that I mean the kernel and all the sorry excuse distros) is a mutated, bloated waste of crap code. Plain and simple. Heh. A hundred distributions. What for? It’s a big commie pissing contest. And then there’s *BSD, quietly plugging along. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Just because something is used everywhere doesn’t mean it’s ANY GOOD. And oh yeah, last time I checked Netcraft, the top 50 sites for uptime were dominated by BSD.
Linux is stupid. Linux is lame. Linux is a complete waste of time and effort. A bunch of moronic commie coders trying to fit into a capatalist regime. Once the suits wake up and smell the IP they’ll leave in droves. Call me childish or infantile, I really don’t care. Linux is shit, shit shit.
So many people obviously have never read the BSD license that they don’t know what the author means. i’d wager they didn’t even read the article. i also reckon that these people are nothing by microsofties in disguise.
Most BSD people I know show a lot more common sense than what has been exposed here. Anywhere here’s what the original author had to say:
“I have included in this section the common disputes I have encountered with this publication. I am sorry if you believe any of the things listed below, you would truly be an unenlightened individual, enjoy…
* Proprietary is supposed to be better than OpenSource(ie. the common mistake of thinking, “you always get what you pay for”)
* OpenSource software companies don’t make money (And yet they stay in business? Impressive)
* You’re just BSD bashing! (Well now, that’s certainly being open-minded about the whole thing)
* But BSD code can be “turned” into GNU code (I sure would love to see that trick)
* [And lastly, individuals that just allow themselves to be excessively warped by society, find it difficult to foresee the day when over 90% of all software in the entire world will be OpenSource]”
Im about to read the article, but if what you say is true. Ie, number #1… Then, wouldnt GNU be hurting OSS as, GNU is restrictive compared to MIT/BSD
The BSD licence gets software to places that GNU does not. If a company such as MS is useing the licence, they use it be cause its good software and they want to keep any changes made prioritory. If the BSD licence or similar (MIT) didnt exist, and this peice of software was under the GNU licence. MS would not even consider useing it. They’d rather right there own. I would imagine its like this for a lot of companies.
Eg, look at TCP/IP. And lets look at the internet. Just about any platform can connect to the internet, via TCP/IP. Where did this come from? BSD! Why do we use it? Cause Windows does. If this software wasnt under the BSD licence, theres good reson to believe Ms would never had included it into their software, prefering to write their own TCPIP stack or own protocol. who knows what we could have ended up with.
And my bigest argument is, when did writing Open Source software become about concuring the world. Who cares? All we want to do, is provide functional, stable and reliable software for the masses. BSD is only the real software that has done that so far. Eg Darwin, TCP/IP etc.
This guys just hell bent on OSS becoming successful, so he can brag to some of his mates who might prefer prioritory software.
OSS is all about fun, not about bringing down competing with other people, or bringing down multinationals with superia software. Its about fun, and working together for the common good.
If i enjoy writing a peice of software, and i think a lot of people should see it, MIT or BSD licence is the way i’d go. I could think of nothing better then having something i wrote for fun, ending up in someones priority product. I would take it as a huge compliment!
Oh goody. Another opertunity for both sides to come out with all guns blazing. I can’t be bothered to refute every incorrect fact this time, I’d be here for days. Lets just cover some of the sillier ones.
o The article was written by one guy. Just because he says it was written “By the Open Source Community” at the top doesn’t make it true. Anyone here who used the phrase “GPL zealots” or “OSS/GPL crowd” are talking rubbish; this is one guys opinion and he does not talk for the rest of the GPL community (Whatever that is) or GNU or RMS.
o The guy is a troll, or a loon. It even reads like a classic Slashdot troll, with phrases like “I was shocked to discover…”, overuse of bold and exclamation marks, the phrase “The fact is…” If this isn’t a troll, the guy is a loon of the highest order.
o BSD is fine. If people want to spend their time writing code under the BSD licence, fine. If I want to write code and release it under the GPL, fine. If you want to write code, print it on 80 column fan fold and lock it in a lead lined box and bury it, fine. Oh, and before you even think about it, that last one was not an analogy or an attempt to alude to closed source software.
o Stop arguing about the usage of the word “Free”. We get it. Its not like no one in these discussions knows what it means in the context of the GPL.
o The GPL does not “force” you to make your code Free. If you don’t like the licence, don’t use the code. If that is a problem for you, email the author and ask them if they will licence it to you under a different licence. Whatever you do, don’t whinge about the GPL “forcing” you to do anything.
I’m going to have to write all this up on the web. Then I can just link to it every time a flamewar erupts and save me some time. People talk so much nonsense they can’t even see that the look rediculous.
…into the twilight zone, or is it COLA (comp.os.linux.advocacy), or any of those other places of long ridiculous GPL v. BSD flamewars. Been there, heared all the arguments, nothing to see here, move along. I think real life is the best way to put this silly crap to rest. Ie., authors use the license they want for their code.
But I do think people need to go learn a bit about copyright law and read the licenses.
Oh, and about the GPLed toolchain in *BSD, there is a BSDed compiler called Tendra that would be great to get into useful shape for the BSDs.
Other than that, big yawn. Why post this troll (other than for hits!!?!) ?
When you criticise the BSD license you also criticise the Apache, X11, MIT, Perl Artistic license, and others that are essentially BSD-like.
I think the biggest argument against the crap Stephen Pinker (et al) is spewing is the SUCCESS of projects under those licenses.
The End.
> GPL does not need BSD
So, go and remove bind, sendmail, postgresql, openssl, openssh, ATA drivers from your Linux (written by Soren Schmidt (sos@) of FreeBSD) and so on. Remove TCP/IP stack from your linux.
It’s rediculous.
JFYI: there is project started which aims to write BSD-licensed compiler from scratch to remove only 1 strong GPL-dependecy from BSD.
> If Stallman would disallow the *BSD projects to use the FSF
> compiler today they (the BSDians) would be royally screwed.
> FreeBSD, NetBSD etc. development would be frozen.
> They could no longer compile their own sources. Especially
> NetBSD which depends on the ultra-portable GCC would be hit
> really hard. I think one could say that the project would
> die that day.
1. Stallman cannot do this because of GPL 😛
2. If he even could it would be much better to *BSD community because it would recieved money from commercial companies to fund development of BSD-licensed compiler much faster. And I can bet it would be much more better-written than GCC, and I can bet that GPL ppl will start using it instead of GCC
Why are you all talking about Microsoft and any other company which can take code and won’t give anything back to developer?
I can say that it looks like that you are against Microsoft, not for OSS.
GPL guys are paranoidly afraid of someone who will “steal” their code.
I will be happy if someone will use my code, even if I won’t get anything for that. But I will. At least in form of copyright -> chance to get more famous and get a better job.
In GPL case you do not have this chance. Microsoft will never pay GPL developer because it cannot use his code. In BSD case there is such chance. Period.
A BSD-licensed open source product can never compete with a proprietary variant? Yeah right. BSD/OS was very much a fringe product, despite having features that were, at the time, missing from the open source alternatives.
Eventually, code from the proprietary BSD/OS ended up being open sourced and incorporated into FreeBSD.
What happened in this case was that the proprietary variant ended up opening their source because they couldn’t compete with the open source variant. Just the opposite of what the author claimed will inevitably happen.
If the BSD license encourages proprietary, competing products, where are the examples of this happening? BSD/OS is dead. MacOS X is the closest you can get, and even there, the portions that were originally under a BSD license are being provided by Apple under an open source license. And the parts that are being kept proprietary by Apple are separate from the rest of the system, a GPL license would not have prevented them from doing that.
Other important products with a BSD or more lenient license…X11, perhaps? The closed source variants are almost exclusively used with their corresponding proprietary operating systems, which they are bundled with.
The open source version, XFree86, seems by far the most popular.
The author could’ve made a more convincing case if he had provided examples. There probably are some, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
big bullshit the article
First of all, do we really need an inflammatory comment in the frickn news story Eugenia? Way to start a flame war.
Now on to my belief. BSD appears more free than GPL if you define freedom by the ability of people to do things.
GPL appears more free than BSD if you define freedom by the availabilty of information and channels by which it can be distributed.
My belief is that the second definition of freedom is a better one, and is one we need to grasp in the age of information. It will prove dangerous if we hold on to our classical ideas of freedom.
Why is the 2nd defintion better?
Think about this: if all information is free and the channels are free it is naturally a result that people can have complete freedom of speech. The converse is not true, as it is possible for people in higher social or governmental positions to control the flow (ie channels) of information.
What is truly important is the information and that there are channels for it to flow through. The GPL ensures this. The BSD license does not.
Over the last decade, in genome research, we had to use the equipment at hand. We needed software that we could modify to crunch huge amounts of data using several applications simultaneously then filtering the data to avoid repetitions. We opted for Free and Open BSD. We chose BSD because of the MIT applications already available and its ability to run Linux applications too. The license was easier for us from a strictly time-saving standpoint. Of course all Microsoft stuff was out of the question because of security concerns, the inability od MS OS’s to crunch really large amounts of data, and its cumbersome and unavailable code. BSD has served the scientific community well. I believe the code is more refined, generally. Of course, this is not to say that most Linux code isn’t also, just that quality control leaves much to be desired. For us, it wasn’t a political issue.
I must say that after readind that FUD-ridden article, I am happy to have chosen OpenBSD and FreeBSD as my operating systems of choice for personal use at home also.
It all boils down to this (don’t get excited…this is just a joke): I’d rather be an evil little devil than a big fat lumbering bovine of the genus Catoblephas.
A hunter from Kew caught a distant view
Of a peacefully meditative gnu,
And he said: “I’ll pursue, and my hands imbrue
In its blood at a closer interview.”
But that beast did ensue and the hunter it threw
O’er the top of a palm that adjacent grew;
And he said as he flew: “It is well I withdrew
Ere, losing my temper, I wickedly slew
That really meritorious gnu.”
Jarn Leffer
Click on my name to read what RMS has to say about all this.
Luckily all your wishes is about to come true ladies and gentlemen.
OpenBeOS is developed under MIT and no GPL stuff is allowed into it.
Perfect for Desktop and BSD for serverside…. howabout joining the team and start some development people!
Guarantee: No Zeals =)
(L)GPL is a fair play,
I share – you share.
BSD is a generous,
I share – you do whatever, I not care.
rah-rah-rah, lah-lah-lah
How is that different that just giving your source code to the public domain?
And why don’t most people give their source code to the public domain? Because they want to make money.
Now why aren’t there many profitable commercial companies like Lindows taking from the GPL “public domain” of code and doing whatever they want with it? Because they can’t sell their products without giving their modifications back to the community who they know will imcorporate them into the original source tree and propogate those changes into every other distribution, making your ability to compete that much more difficult.
The end result is the entire family of GNU products improve at a remarkable rate. And it amazes me that although I know all of you have witnessed this fast rate of improvement you still are in denial. Do you not understand the concepts of rates of change? No single commercial company can compete with an army of commercial companies forced to cooperate and work together on the same products. Sure the army may not be extremely wealthy but it will be an adversary the likes of which Microsoft has never seen before.
Microsoft is THE monopoly, btw. No other commercial entity besides perhaps IBM could even compare. And we all know they tried.
And we also know that both Apple and Microsoft have to use BSD code to bring their products to market so quick, meaning they didn’t have the resources to build it all by themselves. Their competition has those resources. Think about it.
I hope this is a joke cos it aint funny!
The BSD does in no way encourage theft! It promotes code usage and this is a big friggin difference. The code I’ve produced and licesed under the BSD licence is forever free. Anyone that makes modifications to the code is free to use the code as they please. The main difference between the GPL licences and the BSD licence is this, the BSD licence allows people to act freely with respect to the code whereas the GPL licences allows the code to be free but restricts the peoples use of the code.
It’s a big difference if you think of the intentions and the view of other people that the licences indirectly infer. GPL and sublicences have IMHO a view that you have to force others to behave (as in: do as you do). Socialism have nothing to do with this (I have socialist viewpoint, mostly). GPL for me is telling people what they should do than allow them to judge for themselves. If they can make money from the CHANGED code then fine with me. My code is still free, as in gratis. I’d like them to keep the modifications free as well but I respect their choice if they decide not to.
I believe in humanity and a free will. Do you?
hmmm:And why don’t most people give their source code to the public domain? Because they want to make money.
Last time I checked living off of air was not an option for most people.
Now why aren’t there many profitable commercial companies like Lindows taking from the GPL “public domain” of code and doing whatever they want with it? Because they can’t sell their products without giving their modifications back to the community who they know will imcorporate them into the original source tree and propogate those changes into every other distribution, making your ability to compete that much more difficult.
…and this is good how? Making sure that margins are waferthin and you live on the edge of bankrupcy at all times? That investments takes forever to give outcome and thus severely limiting your potential growthrate?
The end result is the entire family of GNU products improve at a remarkable rate. And it amazes me that although I know all of you have witnessed this fast rate of improvement you still are in denial. Do you not understand the concepts of rates of change? No single commercial company can compete with an army of commercial companies forced to cooperate and work together on the same products. Sure the army may not be extremely wealthy but it will be an adversary the likes of which Microsoft has never seen before.
Why not just say “let’s make war on MS” instead cos that is what you are indirectly implying.
That army of yours will never feed as many people in the end as MS does. All you seem to care about is bringing down MS, nothing else.
Microsoft is THE monopoly, btw. No other commercial entity besides perhaps IBM could even compare. And we all know they tried.
You could have just said that MS is our #1 enemy. I in no way share that view. People failing to see that the world have much bigger problems than a virtual monopoly are the no 1 problem. 8 times the amount of casualties 9/11 dies EVERY day from starvation.
And we also know that both Apple and Microsoft have to use BSD code to bring their products to market so quick, meaning they didn’t have the resources to build it all by themselves. Their competition has those resources. Think about it.
About what?! The fact that BSD code helped to produce high quality products that enables people? The fact that those companies employ a lot of people all around the globe and in secondary steps (hardware retailers, resellers, component manufacturers etc. you name it…) put food on the table for a lot of people.
This is just stupid, choose the license you like the best. None of them is evil.
After reading all the comments here, it seems like BSD users think they are so much more elite than Linux users, and that everything that has to do with Linux sucks. It’s getting boring… We have heard it so many times before.
The main point is that we have a choice to use the license that we want. I personally think that sharing is more important than “absolute” freedom which includes the freedom for someone to take something open and profit from closed developments. Incidently I don’t know of any software developed in such a manner which has been successful. Even code licensed under BSD continues to improve because of the simple fact that it remains open. It is respectable that they are allowed to “choose” to do so, but in these days we need a civil law such as the GPL (opposed to criminal law) to ensure our continued freedom, and the FSF to represent us legally, which is why it makes sense to give the FSF full copyrights to GPLed code.
Yeah. I hate the common arguement that “Linux is just a hacked up UNIX clone.” It’s simply not true. Both OS’s have their relative merits. Older does not necessarily mean better. Linux has made great strides as a kernel, and their is a continuous stream of useful programs in development for the GNU system. When Linux 2.6 is stablized we will only see a stronger market for the OS.
I’m sorry I posted my flame yesterday (the FSF=Microsoft one) as it was way OTT and contributed nothing to a sensible criticism of the article. For much better BSD advocacy, check the recent interviews of FreeBSD developers on this website.
> BSD? How is that different that just giving your source
> code to the public domain?
BSD requires attribution (ie. giving credit where it’s due). BTW, contrary to popular belief, Microsoft did not take their TCP/IP stack from FreeBSD but bought it from a closed-source BSD derivative precisely because they didn’t want to give credit.