Posted on 09/04/2007 10:47:50 AM PDT by N3WBI3
GPLv3 will help FreeBSD take some users away from Linux, according to the founder and vice president of The FreeBSD Foundation.
Writing in the FreeBSD Foundation's August newsletter, Justin T. Gibbs said "GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of open source software.
"Against the backdrop of GPLv3, the stark difference between the BSD licensing philosophy and that of the Free Software Foundation are only too clear," he said.
One difference Gibbs saw was future-proofing the licences.
"A GPL proponent might argue that a licence for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD licence is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose (commercial or otherwise) our software will be used," said Gibbs.
Citing high support costs and an inability to guarantee adherence to specification for licensing, Gibbs said "now was perfect time to clarify the differences [between GPLv3 and BSD licenses] and start to engage with large current and potential users of open source software to understand their use models and how the GPLv3 might impact them".
Gibbs said the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an effective response to GPLv3 and he implored the community to make the most of the opportunity it provided.
OSS Ping
That's my attitude, with a limited understanding of GPLv3.
The BSDs look pretty attractive by comparison.
Yeah, I’m looking at FBSD myself...
Isn’t this a straw man argument? Last I read, Linux wasn’t going from 2 to 3.
A lot of people like the give-back clause of most open source licenses since that’s their payment for writing the code. BSD doesn’t have that, and is damn near putting your code in the public domain.
How about an OS on the Mozilla license — it has the give-back clause, no DRM clause, and clearly delineates what is and isn’t considered derivative. Solaris’ CDDL is close to that, but I’m not a Sun or Solaris fan.
From a user perspective there is zero difference between the BSDs and Linux. You can use both of them however you want.
From a developer perspective he might have some point, but the developer camps are pretty much established between the BSD folks and the GPL folks at this point.
As a disclaimer, I use both. I prefer BSD, specifically FreeBSD, on servers and OpenBSD, specifically on security devices, over Linux. I use Linux for desktop and specialty systems.
As it stands yes, I thought it was an interesting read and as both licenses are OSS I posted it.
I think the FUD meters are running higher.
I wonder how Apple factors into this since they probably represent the majority of BSD installations by now.
Since Apple uses BSD licensed code for their userspace and doesn't (to my knowledge) use any GPL code, I suspect that it doesn't affect them at all.
Apple uses a lot of GPL in OS X, even more in OS X Server, but I believe it's all programs and services running on top of the BSD. I don't think any of it is engineered so that it would kick in the DRM provision. But my point was that if this does move people to BSD, how does it affect Apple, and how does Apple affect the decision?
Bogus, typical Stallman glorification.
Well, those people that license their code under the BSD license will likely continue to use the BSD license and those people that license their code under the GPL will have two choices: to use the GPLv2 or to use the GPLv3.
The entire 2 vs. 3 hysteria is a tempest in a teapot.
Where will it make a difference? Here's an example:
Company DRM makes widgets. They need some software to make their widgets work. They use GPLv2 code in their code. The code is then digitally signed such that only their version will work on the widget.
Under GPLv3 this is prohibited. DRM, Inc. has two options. Don't lock their widgets or use someone else's work to base theirs on.
Since Apple doesn't lock their hardware it won't affect them at all.
You think even a troll would get things right once in a while...
1 component, non essential too I think.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The complier is non-essential. What, pray tell, do you expect the Apple developers to compile their source code with?
Other compilers. Unlike Linux, other operating systems aren’t all dependent on gcc.
What are you mumbling? You mean something like this?
Absoft offers IBM XL C/C++ Compiler for Mac OS X
http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/04/13/ibm.xl.c.c.compiler/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.