PathScale Gives FreeBSD, NetBSD A New C++ Runtime

[dnebdal]

It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

No.

(It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)

[kraftman]

No.

(It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)

Yes. It seems you missed what some other people said before.

[LightBit]

Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.

[XorEaxEax]

It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.

Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.

[LightBit]

You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.

You can also FREELY chose to use proprietary library ...

[kraftman]

Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

This makes the GPL a smart license. You are free to choose whatever license you like. People who choose bsd and complain when their code is included into some GPL or proprietary project are simply morons.

I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.

As far as you don't complain nobody says there's something wrong with your decision. While GPL is 'proprietary' for some bsd folks, bsd is shitty for me.

[kraftman]

If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.

Yeah, you explained this very well. Maybe their problem is when bsd code is included into some proprietary project it's not so visible. When it's included into GPL project they can only look at the code, but they can forget about having it back.

[archibald]

If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.

I don't know that they prefer it, I think it might just irritate them less. Whilst closed source software does say "NO! NO Mr. BSD, NO! You may NOT use this code unless you (as the original author) change your licence to the one I prefer!", it doesn't follow it with "Look at me! I'm free, you have complete freedom with my code!".

A caricature certainly, but the from the BSD dev's perspective you've got somebody who took your code and added extra conditions to it (so far, so similar to a closed source project) but then touts their code as being free when it's perfectly un-free from where Mr. BSD is sitting.

I'm still not sure why GPL is better in practice than closed source - the devs don't want to reverse engineer it, and if they did RE, how many people would believe that they didn't peek at the source code if they got stuck? How do you think the Linux devs would react to the BSD devs saying "we RE'd the linux kernel and now we have these new features!". I suspect that the lawyers would get involved and nobody wants that.

I should note that this is spectulation, I don't speak for all of them etc. etc.

[dnebdal]

Yes. It seems you missed what some other people said before.

I didn't miss it - but it's still a ridiculous assertion. Your post effectively said "they prefer closed to open-source programs, and they show it by writing open-source programs with a specific license". Which is not among the more convincing arguments I've heard. (As has been discussed between that post and this reply, admittedly.)

@archibald:
BSD code used in a GPL project, but kept BSD: Happiness. Unicorns dancing under rainbows etc.
BSD code used in closed-source project: Eh, if I have to use it at some point maybe it'll be slightly better than it'd have been otherwise.
BSD code made GPL: Why? They could have used it anyway, so making it impossible to import their changes is just insulting.

On a side note, the companies using FreeBSD are fairly decent at contributing back - after all, it's less work if a change is added upstream.

[kraftman]

I didn't miss it - but it's still a ridiculous assertion. Your post effectively said "they prefer closed to open-source programs, and they show it by writing open-source programs with a specific license". Which is not among the more convincing arguments I've heard. (As has been discussed between that post and this reply, admittedly.)

At first I didn't explain very well what I meant. XorEaxEax did. I meant they prefer supporting closed source projects rather than GPL ones.