Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

[crazycheese]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIyNzU

The open-core model, that this company uses, should be banned in GPL v5 (skipping 4, bad number).
This is active unpatched currently highly misused exploit vector of GPL and it leads to GPL becoming "shareware" and "bugtest" qualities.

[Cthulhux]

When I see claims from BSD parasites like "BSD should work with Linux" or "Linux should not implement features that are not welcome/accepted within BSD", you only confirm your parasite behaviour.

Good thing Linux does not show parasite behavior when it comes to GNU. "Oh, neat, free tools. Let's grab them."

Hypocrites.

[crazycheese]

Good thing Linux does not show parasite behavior when it comes to GNU. "Oh, neat, free tools. Let's grab them."

Hypocrites.

GNU is open. Linux is open. If you have problem with Linux taking BSD-licensed material, fix your license. Write straight - usage only allowed in proprietary environiment. Prove the fact even more, that you are proprietary sluts.

[Cthulhux]

GNU is open. Linux is open.

BSD is open. Now what?

[crazycheese]

BSD is open. Now what?

BSD is not open, it is "free to close". Major difference.

[Cthulhux]

The GPL is not open, it denies potential users to distribute their hard work under a better license.

[BitRot]

I suggest we all calm down and do not start another BSD vs. GPL war.
There are several places where you can discuss this endlessly, but please try to keep this on topic.
If you go on, then just try to behave like adults. You know, not acting like zealots.

[brent]

Oh, please, not this again.

In practice, permissively licensed open source projects do not have any issues with getting corporate contributions. For the most part, the license type simply doesn't matter. If a company is willing to contribute code to open source projects, they do so in a meaningful manner.

Anyway, if there is a license that is frowned upon in much of the corporate world, it's GPLv3. Many companies simply won't touch GPLv3 code with a ten foot pole, if possible, so there won't be any contributions back either. GPLv2 is well accepted, though.

[crazycheese]

Anyway, if there is a license that is frowned upon in much of the corporate world, it's GPLv3. Many companies simply won't touch GPLv3 code with a ten foot pole, if possible, so there won't be any contributions back either. GPLv2 is well accepted, though.

And when you compare the difference between licenses, you understand why. They don't like this exploit fixed. Should you like them in turn?

I suggest we all calm down and do not start another BSD vs. GPL war.
There are several places where you can discuss this endlessly, but please try to keep this on topic.
If you go on, then just try to behave like adults. You know, not acting like zealots.

Agreed. But my message to Beasties was simple: unification is only needed for proprietary systems. This was the true goal of "unified linux" and it failed for this reason.

This is also the reason for Beasties to stop attacking Linux. Its open, developers not willing to support your os - port the code yourself, nobody prevents you. Port it in later stages. Stop acting like clown attacking open os, chose a valid goal - try to match own rival - MacOSX.

The GPL is not open, it denies potential users to distribute their hard work under a better license.

You mean, its either GPL or nothing? Where did you take that? Why wasn't Mozilla sued for multilicensing then?

[Cthulhux]

unification is only needed for proprietary systems.

Yep. Why would anyone want unified APIs? ...