Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 115

Thread: BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You are just plain wrong... Remember the academic origins of BSD; its license, therefore, was motivated by the academy. All this predates the whole "my license is more free than yours" bullshit.
    Nope.
    The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.

    The differences - three differences:
    1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
    2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
    - GPL is not the only license or
    - copyright assignment is required.
    3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Any way, this proves that BSD doesn't hate GPL, and that BSD does not support closed source; this is impossible, since BSD predates all this.
    No. Not proven. If its "academic", software for study, it does not mean anything.
    GPL is both for production and for study.
    BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
    For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.

    If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
    Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.

    On the hate point,Someone says, the power is within the difference. But then, look:
    1) Apple bans GPL
    2) MS bans GPL
    3) BSD starts replacing everything GNU with BSD, because.. GPLv3 is limits their freedom to remove freedom. <- this, nothing else.
    4) BSD chooses Apple as its partner
    5) BSD trolls start posting FUD about how BSD is free and GPL is viral.

    Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
    Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
    Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    So, you can see GNU/GPL as anti-proprietary movements, while BSD is really proprietary-agnostic;
    No.
    GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
    Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
    You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.

    Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    yes, you can 'steal' BSD code, but that was not the motivation for BSD.
    Perhaps Unix took code from BSD, but also remember that their goal was to have a free (non AT&T) Unix, so they were actually fighting for freedom many years before Linux, GNU, FSF, etc.
    Yes, BSD motivation was "do anything about our code what you want".
    Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
    The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.
    For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
    A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?
    There is no such thing as "definition of freedom", there is freedom and there is anarchy. Freedom means "no slavery". Anarchy means allow everything.
    Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.
    Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
    For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
    That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.

    My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
    What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.
    Last edited by brosis; 02-11-2013 at 11:09 AM.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.
    GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
    BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

    GPL is strong copyleft license, because it protects freedoms.
    BSD is public domain, because it does not protect anything it claims.

    GPL is permissive strong copyleft.
    BSD is permissive public domain.

    You asked to remove permissive license, which will leave you with proprietary (opposite) licenses like ... MacOSX.
    Btw,.. VIM developer uses MacOSX, which is proprietary OS - not BSD OS. What "permissive licenses" are you talking about all of the sudden and why do you bitch and call people "assholes"?

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA, US
    Posts
    103

    Default loss

    Wow, this thread is a loss. I have seen some flaming and trolling on these forums before, but I don't recall any like this. Oh well, at least I learned that the forum has a killfile. I hope this does not become routine though.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.
    You are a rounding error, not a debasing reference. Read the Ubuntu forums sometimes, you'll find that CLI use is the minority.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    Well considering that datenwolf didn't seem to do much if any research for his talk and spread misinformation of various projects (many of which Lennart had worked on) I think it was good for him to actually correct some of his claims. Lennart made the horrible talk at least somewhat interesting and fun. It's also quite usual to let the audience ask question and such during the talk.
    Questions get asked during a question and answer period. Lennart was just being an asshole, and should have scheduled his own talk instead of hijacking someone else's talk to support his unnecessary projects.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
    BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.
    May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
    Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.
    A permissive free software licence is a class of free software licence with minimal requirements about how the software can be redistributed. This is in contrast to copyleft licences, which have reciprocity / share-alike requirements. Both sets of free software licences offer the same freedoms in terms of how the software can be used, studied, and privately modified. A major difference is that when the software is being redistributed (either modified or unmodified), permissive licences permit the redistributor to combine the licensed material with other licence terms, potentially adding further restrictions to a derived work, while copyleft licences do not allow further restrictions (among other possible differences).
    Well-known examples of permissive free software licences include the MIT License and the BSD licences. A well known copyleft licence is the GNU General Public License.
    Copyleft is "a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." By comparison with permissive licences, copyleft licensing places more requirement in terms of distribution and combination with software under other licences.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
    BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

    GPL is strong copyleft license, because it protects freedoms.
    BSD is public domain, because it does not protect anything it claims.

    GPL is permissive strong copyleft.
    BSD is permissive public domain.
    CDDL is the best.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    CDDL is the best.
    What about WTFPL?

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    What about WTFPL?
    No, WTFPL is pseudo public domain.

    CDDL is great, because it protect your code from being GPLed and allows to be included in proprietary software.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    What about WTFPL?
    <a type="flamewar" value="off">
    WTFPL doesn't do what you might think, because in most EU countries copyrights are not transferable. So removing copyright notice is not allowed.
    Unlicense or CC0 are better, but still isn't public domain.
    Releasing code to public domain everywhere is actually impossible.
    </a>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •