Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

[Bernard Swiss]

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

Actually, what the GPL does is to deny potential users the right to distribute other people's hard work under a different license, one that doesn't guarantee the downstream users have the same rights in turn.

If you want "more freedom" than the GPL (ie. the freedom to deny equal freedom to other, downstream users), that's fine -- but in that case, you'll have to 'acquire" your base code from people who use a license that lets you deny downstream users those very same rights to the code which you yourself received with the code that you "borrowed". (Or otherwise -- you'll just have to write all "your" code yourself.)

Was someone bitching about "free-loaders"?

[XorEaxEax]

Almost no one outside of GNU uses this extremely horrible license, so maybe that wasn't a short coming to anyone else?

No one _has_ to use the licence, it's there if someone _wants_ to. Just like GPL/MIT/BSD etc

Oh, you mean like the Apple/khtml debacle that had people whining about the unmanageably huge code dumps that met the terms of the license?

Not sure what you are referring to here, I know there was complaints because Apple weren't releasing webkit source code (they finally did). Was the code finally released by Apple in this manner?

But beyond that, are you assuming code contributions will be done in 'unmanageably huge code dumps' as a general rule? If so, why?

[0xBADCODE]

Actually, what the GPL does is to deny potential users the right to distribute other people's hard work under a different license,

And the laws are also restricting your freedom to, say, kill others or using slave labor. That is it: to protect one person's rights, we have to limit other person's rights to some degree. Sure, if you can't go to street and just kill someone without retribution it's definitely limits your freedom. However, your exercises in such freedom are clearly affect other peoples and their freedoms. For example freedom to live and use their freedoms.

Freedom of one ends where freedom of others starts.

GPL takes care about this issue, just like laws do it for material world. BSD license does not cares - it's like world where no rules, no laws and strongest one is the king of hill, can kill, take slaves or whatever. Ironically, strongest one always turns out to be some corporation and it never cares about well-being of those who brought them their powers. So it tends to self-collapse due to inherently awkward design.

[ryao]

You have to read GPL. If you do not distribute binaries, you don't have to distribute source either. This allows to use GPLed code on your private servers/installations/whatever without giving back changes. If this an issue for developers, they will be better with AGPL license, which handles this use case and requires to release source in such cases as well. For me it looks like if it's not a big deal at the moment and usual GPL works quite well for Linux.

In general GPL does it quite inconvenient or hard for most business models to exist without releasing source. This includes embedded, general purpose OSes (servers, desktops, etc) and so on. And Linux has seriously outperformed BSD-based competitors on these markets.

You see, BSDs are 10 years older. So they had all chances to win. However, corporations behind them preferred not to disclose their improvements. Single company wins. Everyone else loses. Upstream project as whole getting stuck without resources and improvements. Then competitor appears and outruns it, using collaboration of members to improve it's development speed. So Linux does not faces lack of resources. If someone improves something and distributes it, they have to publish source as well. There are ways to workaround but risky, costly and dubious. And it would certainly make you unwelcome for kernel developers to say the least (do you remember "f...k you, Nvidia"?). So you will be on your own, not a part of process. This implies seriously increased development cost and so on.

In short, GPL makes it very inconvenient to be parasite and far more convenient to be part of process. BSD license does not cares so at the end of day BSD systems are getting eaten by parasites who takes the code and never returns anything.

Would you mind telling me explicitly what in the code is lacking that has likely been improved by some company, but not disclosed? People like to talk about a failure to contribute improvements, but I have yet to see anyone discuss what these mystical improvements are and why any sane project would want to merge them.

[ryao]

Hmm... not sure that I understand the distinction you make between writing code or 'freeloading', are you suggesting that anyone not writing code (open source code I assume) are freeloaders if they _use_ open source?

Or was this not a question in a larger scope but something particularly directed at me, as in some ad hominem longshot of -'unless you write open source you should shut your mouth' or some such?

You hold such deep opinions on how other people should do things that I am very interested in knowing if you practice what you preach. It would provide me with a data point on a demographic in which I consider you to be a member.

[staalmannen]

I really should not weigh in on this, but it starts getting silly. I am an Arch linux user (so not yet a BSD user) but I do like the BSDs, illumos and Plan9. Based on the rather childish stance for the "pro linux" side in this debate I can understand the sentiment "Linux is for people who hate Microsoft, BSD is for people who love unix". Since I am in the "love unix" (especially its original ideals, manifested by Plan9) camp but still use Linux out of convenience I really do not like being associated to silly, childish pro-GPL andi-BSD proponents. I really wish there was a BSD/Linux operating system out there so that I at least could distance myself from this sillyness.

First. Most likely, Linux did not win over BSD due to the GPL. A far more probable reason is that the reason for Linux's success is Linus Thorvalds who basically managed to generate a "Bazaar" and scale the development in an unprecedented manner (especially after the advent of git). The GPL has probably helped a bit at a certain stage where big companies joined the game. For them the tit-for-tat principle ensured that none of their direct competitors would be able to grab their improvements and then out-innovate them on top of those. This was a cultural adjustment but when it was in place it gave confidence. The "force people to contribute" via GPL has on the other hand done far more damage than good. One of the worst examples is Busybox, where troll-like behavior has made people look elsewhere for an embedded OS (so in fact Busybox hurt Linux adoption. Now with Android and Toybox as permissive userlands, embedded linux is getting back some confidence).

Secondly, the most probable reason why BSD on i386 did not win over Linux despite being technically far more advanced for several years is spelled "UNIX wars". There was lots of legal uncertainty at the time about BSD and this really hurt it. If BSD i386 had been available without this issue it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

EDIT:

by the way. Already open code (permissive or not) that has been distributed can not be retroactively closed so the concept of "stealing" from an open source release is quite silly by itself.

[ArchLinux]

I am an Arch linux user

Please do not insult me like this.

I really wish there was a BSD/Linux operating system out there

I really wish I could copy other people's bills too but unfortunately no one allows me to. In fact, in Linus's own words: "making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did."

The fact that you'd rather let everyone do whatever they want than make sure you're in terms with the license is just one of these things in this funny little universe that I'm never going to understand.

If BSD i386 had been available without this issue it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

If Minix had been available without being full of issues it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

If Hurd had been available instead of not it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

by the way. Already open code (permissive or not) that has been distributed can not be retroactively closed so the concept of "stealing" from an open source release is quite silly by itself.

Yeah, you wouldn't undrestand that, would you?

But then again, you wouldn't like this license so much if you did.

[ArchLinux]

You hold such deep opinions on how other people should do things that I am very interested in knowing if you practice what you preach. It would provide me with a data point on a demographic in which I consider you to be a member.

So because Simon Cowell probably never sang a song in his life he is automatically not allowed to judge anybody else?

[XorEaxEax]

You hold such deep opinions on how other people should do things that I am very interested in knowing if you practice what you preach. It would provide me with a data point on a demographic in which I consider you to be a member.

Actually I don't hold 'deep opinions on how other people should do things', you must be projecting yourself onto me. Unlike you I'm a licence liberal and as I've stated here on Phoronix many times I think that whatever licence the author/owner of a piece of code chooses is by default the right one, it is my choice as to whether I find the conditions acceptable and if I don't then I move along.

If you want my personal preferences regarding licences as a data point, I recently summarised them in another post here and are as follows:

Yes, but the main draw with GPL for developers is that they, as 'recipients' are entitled to enhancements made to their code. This practical advantage is in my opinion the BIG reason why GPL is the most used licence by far, rather than the ideological stance it takes.

I think it also makes a great licence for companies who wants to cooperate with open source on a legally binding even playfield, the large amount of full-time developers paid by companies to work on Linux seems to support my thesis.

On the other hand if you do not want/need/expect any help with developing a piece of software (either because it's 'done' or you have the resources to take it anywhere you want without help) then I think BSD/MIT style licencing is much more appropriate.

Also, some type of software is better suited for certain licences I think, something which is developed as a whole is better suited for GPL than framework/component style code which is better off in a practical sense when licenced permissively or LGPL style.

[yogi_berra]

Unlike you I'm a licence liberal

liberalism: political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property

You'd like us to believe that you are a liberal, but it is clear from your arguments that you are not.

In every conversation on this forum about anything licensed under a permissive license, your stand is clearly made for the authoritarian nature of the gpl.