FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

[sub.mesa]

I said that GPL advocates GIVE back, but under their preferred licence

If you use code with a different license, say BSD, then it is nice to give any modification of that code back to their original license. The GPL requires this, because you cannot borrow code from GPL, change it, and license the whole thing as BSD.

In reality that means that GPL is a one-way street. They take from others, but no one else can benefit from GPL. With BSD it is the other way around.

One valid argument, however, is that GPL guarantees that any development on the code will not be proprietary. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. But the reality is that GPL means a one-way street while BSD means a two-way street.

Important software licensed as GPL is not really free and should be rewritten at one point or another with a true liberal license. The only real restriction should be that you cannot claim you wrote it yourself; basically that is what the BSD license says. The major argument in here is that the code can be used for as many purposes, without requiring to be rewritten and human work being done redundant. One guy does the work, everyone can profit. That's the idea of sharing to make everyone better.

[XorEaxEax]

If you use code with a different license, say BSD, then it is nice to give any modification of that code back to their original license.

Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.

Important software licensed as GPL is not really free and should be rewritten at one point or another with a true liberal license.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten. Unless there is a practical problem for BSD systems to use the GPL licenced software I personally find it to be a waste of resources. Granted I don't know exactly what you mean by 'important software' but I can think of tons of software I deem important which poses no practical barriers (as in licencing) for being used by BSD systems. Unless you mean that GPL software should be rewritten under BSD so they can be used in proprietary projects, which I personally would consider an even greater waste or resources.

The major argument in here is that the code can be used for as many purposes, without requiring to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.

Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back, thus requiring those improvements 'having to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.'. There's no 'perfect licence' simply because this is not a perfect world.

One guy does the work, everyone can profit. That's the idea of sharing to make everyone better.

As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit. Sometimes the 'one guy' does the work and wants to benefit from any enhancements done to his work, there's nothing wrong with that and for him GPL is a good choice.

[sub.mesa]

Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.

The question was about giving code changes back in another license. If a BSD project is being incoporated by a GPL project, which alters/improves the code, then they will release the new adaptations as GPL, not as BSD code. For the original BSD project to gain anything by these adaptations, they would need to change their own license from BSD to GPL. Otherwise, they can not incorporate any of the changes back to their own project. That's why it is a one-way street for GPL, while BSD itself is two-way street.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten.

A good example might be the GCC compiler collection. They began to release as GPL v3 starting with some version (4.3 or so? I don't recall). This means FreeBSD can and should not use this version anymore, as it limits the deployment of FreeBSD and makes FreeBSD itself more restrictive, especially considering FreeBSD has a strong power base in larger companies and governments, who are not willing to be subject to the GPL v3 license. There may be more arguments against GPL v3 that I'm unfamiliar with.

A good compiler collection that is universal and ubiquitous is what I consider 'important software'. Such software should not be released under a very restrictive license (which I consider GPL v3) to be, because that means it cannot be widely used and at one point another project will have to redo all the work. The whole point of open source is that we can share eachothers work and not have to reinvent the wheel for every new project/idea/software.

I don't see a major objection in some software being GPL v3, but important infrastructure should never have such a restrictive license IMO. Remember the XFree86 project? They changed their license at one point, to be incompatible with GPL. This is pretty much the same issue, but now the other way around. The result was that their changes had to be rewritten and basically the whole project was replaced by the X.org project. Restrictive licenses for such important infrastructure projects are basically unacceptable and unproductive. I can't see anyone benefiting from this.

Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back

That is indeed one consequence of being liberal: you do not force people to give back, though you encourage people to do so. By not forcing them, your liberal project is usable by anything and anyone, without ever needing to be rewritten due to license concerns. Due to the widespread usability, it is reasonable to expect the project would be more popular than with a very restrictive license. This causes more contributors. Perhaps in percentage less would give code back than GPL, but the opposite could be true as well.

As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit.

That is the whole point of open source software. One guy does the work, i.e. make Firefox, so that 'we' may all use it without having to write our own browsers/OS/software ourselves. Even GPL allows commercial use of the application. So in essence what you say applies to all open source software, copyfree or copyleft.

If you want to benefit from your work, then either write proprietary code and sell it, or try to gain other sources of revenue, like selling support, being available for custom functionality (companies, governments), selling merchandise, etc.

[DaemonFC]

Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.


Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten. Unless there is a practical problem for BSD systems to use the GPL licenced software I personally find it to be a waste of resources. Granted I don't know exactly what you mean by 'important software' but I can think of tons of software I deem important which poses no practical barriers (as in licencing) for being used by BSD systems. Unless you mean that GPL software should be rewritten under BSD so they can be used in proprietary projects, which I personally would consider an even greater waste or resources.


Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back, thus requiring those improvements 'having to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.'. There's no 'perfect licence' simply because this is not a perfect world.


As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit. Sometimes the 'one guy' does the work and wants to benefit from any enhancements done to his work, there's nothing wrong with that and for him GPL is a good choice.

You can say whatever you want about the GPL, but it's not Linux that is rifling through Apple's garbage can looking for scraps is it?

[XorEaxEax]

The question was about giving code changes back in another license.

Yes and I said that you can (and this happens) give back code changes under TWO or even MORE licences. It's not exclusive.

A good example might be the GCC compiler collection. They began to release as GPL v3 starting with some version (4.3 or so? I don't recall). This means FreeBSD can and should not use this version anymore, as it limits the deployment of FreeBSD and makes FreeBSD itself more restrictive,

I have to ask, what exactly in GPLv3 was it that made it impossible for FreeBSD to use it? They had (and have) no problem using GCC 4.2 which is GPLv2 licenced.

especially considering FreeBSD has a strong power base in larger companies and governments, who are not willing to be subject to the GPL v3 license. There may be more arguments against GPL v3 that I'm unfamiliar with.

GCC post 4.2 (and thus licenced as GPLv3) is used in larger companies and certainly governments aswell, again I don't see what in GPLv3 vs GPLv2 would hinder this adoption and I would really want to know.

A good compiler collection that is universal and ubiquitous is what I consider 'important software'. Such software should not be released under a very restrictive license (which I consider GPL v3) to be, because that means it cannot be widely used and at one point another project will have to redo all the work.

Not widely used? Are you saying GCC post 4.2 is NOT widely used? What are you smoking? It's likely the most widely used compiler toolchain in the world (yes, even though OSX and FreeBSD doesn't ship GCC post 4.2, there's a reason post 4.2 GCC releases are quickly available in ports). Again, I want to know why GPLv3 is unacceptable for FreeBSD/Apple given that companies I've worked for have no problem compiling and shipping proprietary binaries using a GPLv3 licenced GCC toolchain, just like they had no problem doing so with a GPLv2 licenced GCC toolchain. Also companies like IBM, AMD, Intel, Red Hat have no problem not only using but also contributing large amounts of code to GPLv3 licenced GCC. The only thing I can think of in GPLv3 vs GPLv2 which would cause Apple atleast to refrain is the patent clause given how eager Apple is to engage in patent suits.

By not forcing them, your liberal project is usable by anything and anyone, without ever needing to be rewritten due to license concerns.

And again, by people keeping improvements to themselves, these improvement efforts needs to be duplicated. So the whole 'saves duplicated effort' is not a universal truth just because it's liberally licenced.

Due to the widespread usability, it is reasonable to expect the project would be more popular than with a very restrictive license. This causes more contributors. Perhaps in percentage less would give code back than GPL, but the opposite could be true as well.

No, I don't see a clear rule indicating that it would cause more contributors. I could use anocdotal evidence like contributor difference between Linux vs BSD's but that's not the TRUTH either. Over the years my impression is that generally for frameworks, languages, libraries where a restrictive licence would pose a practical problem and/or where there's little reason to keep your improvements proprietary there's a high use of liberal licences BSD/MIT even LGPL etc. In other areas where a restrictive licence poses no practical problems, like applications (gimp, inkscape, blender, ffmpeg, x264 etc etc) GPL is extremely popular.

That is the whole point of open source software. One guy does the work,

No, while it's ONE of the points of open software, another is collaborating in developing open source software. GPL ensures that all improvements are made available to everyone which is the basis for collaborative work.

Even GPL allows commercial use of the application. So in essence what you say applies to all open source software, copyfree or copyleft.

Yes, unlike what many seem to think GPL (or rather FSF) is not against making money out of software, nor that GPL licenced software must be free in cost. It merely demands that the source code has to be made available to the recipient.

If you want to benefit from your work, then either write proprietary code and sell it, or try to gain other sources of revenue, like selling support, being available for custom functionality (companies, governments), selling merchandise, etc.

Nonsense, as stated above you can benefit from your work with others improving on it and allowing you the use of those improvements, which is something GPL enforces. 'Benefiting' is not exclusively a monetary concept.

[DaemonFC]

They could use modern GCC licensed under the GPL 3, it's just that FreeBSD's bosses at Apple and other proprietary software companies don't like the idea that they have to release their right to sue the user of anything they give code to.

And that's fine, I just wish they'd stop lying about why they don't like the GPL.

[scjet]

FreeBeastie is still alive n' well

Servers? I don't run a server, I run a desktop. Linux is great as a desktop, BSD ....

blah blah blah.

Your "pretending" that you know nuthin' about Servers has only convinced me that u're nuthin' but a trolling liar....
Hence your "petty rants" of BSD. But just to cheer your day up a bit, I will say that OpenBSD is almost as disgusted with freebsd as you are.
It really bother's you that FreeBSD is still around, almost as much as the fact that Linux also can't get rid of it.

Well, NEWSFLASH, the *BSD's are gonna be around long, long, long after you and me are worm dung, and in many derivatives, incantations, and "Serv"ings.
Get Over It already, friend.
don't like the *BSD's as a desktop ???, then don't use it man.

"The BSD Things In Life Are Free"

[kraftman]

blah blah blah.

Your "pretending" that you know nuthin' about Servers has only convinced me that u're nuthin' but a trolling liar....
Hence your "petty rants" of BSD. But just to cheer your day up a bit, I will say that OpenBSD is almost as disgusted with freebsd as you are.
It really bother's you that FreeBSD is still around, almost as much as the fact that Linux also can't get rid of it.

Blah blah... I cannot imagine bsd on servers in next five years. Maybe just some fanboys will be running it or its devs.

"The BSD Things In Life Are Free"

Like the slaves labour. At least they get food.

[kraftman]

If you believe FreeBSD is inferior software, why post here at all? It's not like we're excited to read your troll posts, DaemonFC. You obviously do not value the advanced features server admins can appreciate in FreeBSD and other server operating systems. I suggest you restrict yourself to desktop/graphics/Linux forums instead, and allow others to post in the BSD forums without these silly flamewars of an appalling low level.

What features that aren't present in Linux? It's Linux that has much higher market share in the servers market than BSD.

[dnebdal]

Blah blah... I cannot imagine bsd on servers in next five years. Maybe just some fanboys will be running it or its devs.

Want to set up a bet? I really don't see them going anywhere.