Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: PathScale Gives FreeBSD, NetBSD A New C++ Runtime

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    It's funny therefore that many times BSD fans seem to be just fine with their code being used in proprietary programs while getting pissed when it's used in GPL licenced programs, what gives?
    It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.

    Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people. If people want to worship Zorba and coat themselves in corn syrup, they can, but don't make everyone else do it.

    Other people have explained it better then I have, so ask around. Try forums.freebsd.org.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portablenuke View Post
    It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork
    You probably should look up proprietary in the dictionary.

    which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.
    If the original author doesn't want his or her code to be incorporated in a program or library that's licensed under the GPL then he or she should choose an appropriate license that disallows that.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    The other stuff PathScale is doing really intrigues me, though. If they can get the GPGPU performance of Fermi on PSCNV up to a level near the binary, that would be a huge win for people who want to run a dedicated server using a Fermi card for GPGPU. I actually investigated a possible application of that for my own uses: using OpenCL to do real-time physics modelling using the Bullet physics engine and OpenSimulator. The hope is that you'd be able to push a much larger server-side physics workload in OpenSimulator if you use OpenCL to do the processing on a large GPU. The CPU would be freed up to do more mundane tasks that are less math-intensive, like keeping track of object and agent positions and properties. You could either run a large number of regions on a single server, or run one very physics-intensive region with a degree of dynamic content that we aren't used to seeing in OpenSimulator.
    1) Pretty please don't use OpenCL
    2) Please don't expect PSCNV to work with OpenCL (Or at least for PathScale to add support for it)

    If you want an open standard for GPGPU that makes sense consider the *much* lesser known HMPP. It's a high performance directive based approach with sane syntax and scalability for x86 and GPGPU.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    I don't speak for the OpenBSD project, but what I've observed on the mailing list is that the developers are fine with people taking and closing their source code. What they don't like is large companies taking their code in its entirety, slapping a proprietary licence on it, selling it for lots of money and giving nothing back - behaviour that can reasonably called parasitic.

    Such behaviour is permitted by the licence, but just because you're not explicitly and legally forbidden from doing something that doesn't make it a decent thing to do or mean that you should sit back and be happy about it.

    monraaf: the BSD community frequently use the term "proprietary" to mean "has source code that we can't touch or use", that they are able to view it under the GPL makes little difference to them, it's still code that can't be used in their software.


    "If the original author doesn't want his or her code to be incorporated in a program or library that's licensed under the GPL then he or she should choose an appropriate license that disallows that."
    Shouldn't the person taking the code respect the author's wishes without being forced to? If nothing else, isn't that just polite?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portablenuke View Post
    Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people.
    Ehh what? Isn't the whole idea with BSD/MIT style licencing that you may do pretty much what you want with the source code, so what is this about 'follow other's wishes'/'forcing religion'?

    Now I realize that people who licences their code under BSD would like it if those using and enhancing it distributing those changes back under a BSD compatible licence, but they don't make that a condition for use like GPL does. And again I think that's very generous, but nothing in what you wrote up there makes me understand why it seems many BSD fans have no problems whatsoever with BSD code being used in proprietary projects, but get pissed when it's used in GPL projects. From a BSD perspective it should be the same thing, with a slight positive note for GPL since atleast it's easier should they want to reverse engineer any features from it.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibald View Post
    monraaf: the BSD community frequently use the term "proprietary" to mean "has source code that we can't touch or use", that they are able to view it under the GPL makes little difference to them, it's still code that can't be used in their software.
    Saying proprietary they're simply saying bullshit. I will probably start calling bsd a shitty license.

    Shouldn't the person taking the code respect the author's wishes without being forced to? If nothing else, isn't that just polite?
    No, he shouldn't if he's working on some competive product. They're just fools if they use bsd license and expect people will give the code back.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portablenuke View Post
    It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.
    More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed. The relevant text in the license is:

    Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    This gets a bit fuzzy if you think about it a lot, which I suppose was probably one of the motivations behind the WTFPL.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portablenuke View Post
    Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people.
    The BSD is a fine license. But i will never understand why people somehow think it's perfectly fine for a company to take BSD code into a proprietary codebase but not OK for someone to stick it in a GPL codebase. In both cases the BSD code is no longer available to the original coder, but one is celebrated as the strength of the license while the other identical scenario is derided as freeloading and forcing religion.

    The point of the BSD license is to allow others to do whatever they want with your code. Sticking it into a GPL licensed codebase is part of that freedom.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed.
    Certainly, but that's not the issue. The BSD licenced portion of the code doesn't change licence, only the modifications to that code are licenced differently. I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects. The exact same holds true, the original code is still licenced under BSD, only changes made by the GPL programmers will be licenced under GPL. Just like any changes made by a proprietary company will be kept closed source.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects.
    It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •