C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

[pingufunkybeat]

Yes, my question is why someone who advocates BSD is even working on a GPL licenced system component for a GPL licenced kernel (Linux) to begin with. He does this on his spare-time from what I gather, wouldn't he better put those efforts towards BSD-licenced code given that this is what (I am assuming) he prefers?

I don't think that you can infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater, just because he takes a different side in this particular discussion.

I'm taking the GPL-side, but I'm certainly not a BSD-hater. I have released code under permissive licenses in the past, and probably will in the future when it's right to do so. It's just that I prefer the (L)GPL for most purposes.

[XorEaxEax]

I don't think that you can infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater, just because he takes a different side in this particular discussion.

I don't see where I 'infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater', as per my thoughts regarding his view on BSD vs GPL, those are not based upon this thread. I've discussed licences with him here on Phoronix before. Again, I'm just confused as why someone who has a strong preference for BSD style licencing would spend his spare-time working on a forked piece of GPL licenced software which is only used with another piece of GPL licenced software. I'm not saying it's 'wrong', just that I find it, odd...

[Ramiliez]

I don't see where I 'infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater', as per my thoughts regarding his view on BSD vs GPL, those are not based upon this thread. I've discussed licences with him here on Phoronix before. Again, I'm just confused as why someone who has a strong preference for BSD style licencing would spend his spare-time working on a forked piece of GPL licenced software which is only used with another piece of GPL licenced software. I'm not saying it's 'wrong', just that I find it, odd...

Because systemd is LGPL? and when udev will be integrated into systemd it will pollute every single Linux distribution with LGPL Jihad must continue at all costs

[brosis]

Because systemd is LGPL? and when udev will be integrated into systemd it will pollute every single Linux distribution with LGPL Jihad must continue at all costs

Oh, pollute Linux distributions with jihad of freedom protection, yes, I see it, uhuh, whatever Sir TRASH.

Your previous post btw: "1. Vista these days is stable and 2nd best OS" uhuh, just recycle yourself for good.

[BeardedGNUFreak]

Let me know when you have a browser and a toolkit.

You mean like the BSD style licensed top browser in the world Chrome?

No wonder the garbage viral GPL is dying if its rapidly dwindling fans are this clueless...

[Ramiliez]

Oh, pollute Linux distributions with jihad of freedom protection, yes, I see it, uhuh, whatever Sir TRASH.

Your previous post btw: "1. Vista these days is stable and 2nd best OS" uhuh, just recycle yourself for good.

That was sarcasm and i said that Vista is second best OS from MS im using Sabayon since 2010 for obvious reasons

[pingufunkybeat]

You mean like the BSD style licensed top browser in the world Chrome?

The closed-source browser with an LGPL engine?

Yeah, I mean that one.

[yogi_berra]

There hasn't been a huge change, in any case. Fluctuations are normal.

Fluctuation? Nope.

From 2011: http://blogs.the451group.com/opensou...ne-of-the-gpl/

Their predictions were shown to be wrong as the gpl family is declining faster than they predicted.

[ryao]

Are you insinuating that GPL 'forces people to give free stuff'?


Ehh ?


A thing that has been confusing me, you are obviously a BSD advocate and from the looks of it you have no love for GPL, why are you developing a udev fork (eudev) which is GPLv2 licenced and specifically for Linux which is also GPLv2 licenced? Wouldn't someone who are strongly advocating BSD work on, well BSD software?

I meant to say that a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a LGPL licensed kernel.

Excuse me?

Everything I mentioned is either GPL or LGPL. None of it is under a BSD-style license.

You were talking about GPL-licensed software and then cited LGPL licensed software. There is a difference.

The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.

The closed-source browser with an LGPL engine?

Yeah, I mean that one.

Chrome is largely open source. The only things that are closed source or proprietary are a few plugins and the branding. You can build the public sources on Gentoo by doing `emerge www-client/chromium`. Mozilla has a similar branding policy for Firefox and it relies on closed source plugins much like chrome. The only difference is that they are not distributed with firefox.

[RealNC]

I meant to say that a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a LGPL licensed kernel.

Not really. See for example NVidia and their inability to use proper kernel APIs (DMA-BUF) for their optimus support because that API is GPLed and the kernel doesn't provide an exception for it, like it does for some other APIs:

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

If the kernel actually was LGPL, they would be able to use that API.