FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

[Awesomeness]

LGPL is available to those who would want copyleft per file

Seriously: STOP SPREADING BULLSHIT!
LGPL is NOT Copyleft per file. MPL is. LGPL is coplyleft per library.

[XorEaxEax]

Dynamic linking all small parts of other projects is also not practical, gtk2, gtk3, qt, sdl, webkit are diffrent story.

Generally LGPL code IS used for libraries such as those mentioned above. And if you find dynamically LGPL impractical then by all means don't use it, no one is forcing you to.

My point is, GPL is very incompatible and that "forces" you to use GPL for your code.
As I said, I would prefer per file copyright license, like CDDL, but it is GPL incompatible.

Again no, for YOUR code you can use any GPL compatible licence (like BSD/MIT) when combining it with GPL code. You still have to release the entire source code (including YOUR code) as per GPL's conditions, but you don't have to LICENCE your code as GPL. You can even dual-licence it so that version of your code you include together with GPL code will use a compatible licence and yet also provide YOUR same code under a CDDL licence for inclusion in other projects.

You need to understand the difference here between YOUR code and someone else's, as soon as you use someone else's code you are subject to _their_ conditions, this holds true for all licences as they are simply 'conditions for use'. These conditions in turn makes some licences incompatible with eachother (like GPL, CDDL). Now you can argue the conditions all day long, but no one is FORCING you to use GPL because no one is FORCING you to use GPL licenced code.

edit: and yes, Awesomness is right, LGPL is per library and not file, my mistake.

[LightBit]

Now you can argue the conditions all day long, but no one is FORCING you to use GPL because no one is FORCING you to use GPL licenced code.

That is true for any license, even proprietary.
I only explained why I think GPL itself is selfish.

[jrch2k8]

No, certainly it's not anything close to vanilla FreeBSD but I doubt there's alot of old stuff from the NeXT days in there, iirc the Mach stuff isn't even micro-kernel based (Mach didn't become a full-fledged micro-kernel until late in the game, and shares little with the NeXT implementation) but again I may be remembering incorrectly.


Well I didn't say it's anywhere near Linux marketshare in embedded but it's not a 'hobby-os' outside of servers either. We have atleast Cisco and Juniper using FreeBSD as the base for their proprietary operating systems on which their embedded network devices (routers etc) runs on. Again the reason they choose FreeBSD instead of say Linux is because they are allowed to keep the enhancements they do to FreeBSD proprietary and thus use them as a competitive edge. This is great for Cisco,Juniper et al but it means less code makes it back to FreeBSD. Then again the FreeBSD developers ARE well aware of this and CHOOSE to allow this by their choice of licence so it's not as if anyone is being tricked.

There's obviously room for both BSD and Linux, as an end-user though I prefer the Linux model as I get to enjoy ALL the kernel enhancements made by corporations and not just those they think are of no competitive consequence.

1.) i readed somewhere that NeXT included originally Mach 2.0 and later for the first OS X was upgraded to 3.0 and the freebsd chunks were put inside the NeXT code but i doubt too that much of the NeXT original code remains in the latests OS X tho

2.) true freebsd is not some hobby OS i agree, and i use it too for certain situations tho. im not stallman so i can tolerate the BSD license but i think BSD license terms will hurt Freebsd in the long run but i admit is a nice OS

3.) true bsd license is public and you are free to read it and choose to use it or not in your code, so i agree no one is tricking anyone, same is true for for the other licenses tho

4.) linux and bsd both can coexist and compliment each other in some cases but i prefer linux mostly too XD

tomorrow 10 years free of microsoft products tomorrow YaY!!!

[pingufunkybeat]

Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

Who's funding this character assassination FFS?

[XorEaxEax]

That is true for any license, even proprietary.
I only explained why I think GPL itself is selfish.

Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.

I also think people who licence their code as BSD/MIT-style are extremely generous. But it all boils down to personal choice, there is no right or wrong other than that which the code author (or owner should he/she work for someone) chooses.

Whatever the terms are, accept them or write your own code. And for the record I have no problem with proprietary code, which I assume you must since you find GPL 'selfish'.

[LightBit]

Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.

No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".

[XorEaxEax]

1.) i readed somewhere that NeXT included originally Mach 2.0 and later for the first OS X was upgraded to 3.0 and the freebsd chunks were put inside the NeXT code but i doubt too that much of the NeXT original code remains in the latests OS X tho

Well it was a while back so my memory could be failing me, but I read that NeXT OpenStep contained a Mach kernel based off an early version which was not in practice a micro-kernel (iirc Mach development was long and problematic and relied on a monolithic design for much of it's functionality during most of it's development cycle) together with parts from FreeBSD and NetBSD from which then emerged OSX.

The story I read was an article series which was a rebuttal of people assuming that OSX was slow due to having a micro-kernel, which the author (while also providing technical insight which seemed to back him up) claimed it did not. I'll see if I can find it again, it was quite some time ago I read it.

edit: I think I found the article series about Next/Mach: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html
Here's hoping I remembered it correctly, else I feel confident Awesomness will be there to 'correct' me

[XorEaxEax]

No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".

If it spreads it's only because people choose to licence their code under it and other people wants to use that code.

[jrch2k8]

Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

Who's funding this character assassination FFS?

jajajaj i just mean it in the sense that stallman tends to have mixed views of the bsd license and the lack of copyleft when he does his reccomendations(like openbsd case) and i just don't care if you choose bsd or gpl or mit or XXX is your problem so deal with it kinda position