GPLv3 to drive users from Linux to FreeBSD?

builderau.com.au ^ | 2007-09-03 | Chris Duckett

[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.

[Dominick]

1 component, non essential too I think.

Name it. You can't. You don't know.

You didn't answer the question, again. You can't.

[Golden Eagle]

LOL what question. Try English.

This is all a distraction of course to try to backup the original BS on this thread that OSX uses quote “lots” of GPL code, which is simply Stallman propoganda and false. BSD Unix attempts to avoid Stallman’s “not Unix” junk and his copyleft license wherever possible, which is the premise of this thread article as well. Keep pushing people away though, thanks.

[1L]

I’m by no means an expert (probably closer to the opposite), but I’m leaving BSD for Linux at my office and home servers. FreeBSD is too hard for me to configure properly compared to linux, and I can much more easily update and install software on my Fedora web server. In addition, Linux is more accommodating as a couple of software packages don’t run on BSD.

This doesn’t have much to do with embedded systems as I am a user only and a developer by the loosest of definitions. Now, if you could point me to a reference source that would clear up all my BSD confusion, then I’d consider staying!

[Dominick]

LOL what question. Try English.

Name the one component. You can't answer it, so you make a non-answer.

[Golden Eagle]

Still not clear what you’re asking, are you capable of typing more than three or four words per sentence, or is that your maximum?

[Dominick]

Still not clear what you’re asking, are you capable of typing more than three or four words per sentence, or is that your maximum?

Still can't answer I see. I asked you to prove your false statement about GPL software written and used on BSD. You carelessly answered it was one unimportant component. I asked you to name it. You can't.

[Golden Eagle]

LOL that’s not what I said at all of course, no wonder you kept mumbling. I referred to his claim of GCC as being only 1 component, not that it ws the only one, Samba is another. There are probably a few others, but still not “a lot” very few in fact, BSD people generally despise Stallmanites, just as the article indicates.

[Dominick]

I referred to his claim of GCC as being only 1 component, not that it ws the only one, Samba is another. There are probably a few others, but still not “a lot” very few in fact,

Name any of them, Samba isn't one. GCC isn't an unimportant component.

Did you do all that digging for nothing?

[Golden Eagle]

LMAO what are you mumbling about now? Looks like you’re actually agreeing with me that there is not “a lot” of GPL code in BSD, or if you’re trying to disagree (who can tell LOL) then post “lots” of examples.

[Dominick]

You are still evading the question, and turning this personal. You can’t answer my challenge. You stated there was one unimportant GPL package in BSD, and I said OK name it. You can’t.

[Golden Eagle]

That’s not what I said at all. But since you’re apparently agreeing with my original claim that there is not “a lot” of the green party leftist Stallman’s code in BSD as his supporter attempted to claim, I have no idea what your point is. If you’re a Stallmanite too and believe there is “lots” of his code in BSD then give “lots” of examples, but weak attempts at mischaracterizing my posts or the discussion aren’t working. In other words, this is probably my last post unless you have any evidence relevant to how much Stallman code is in BSD and whether that meets the definition of “lots”.

[Dominick]

Post 13:Apple uses a lot of GPL in OS X

Bogus, typical Stallman glorification.

Post 16:1 component, non essential too I think.

Post 31:That’s not what I said at all.

I asked you to name it, and you didn't because you can't. Your opinions are based in a fantasy.

BSD uses a lot of GPLed software. Post 13 was wrong and post 16 was wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

All you do is talk around people because you are out of your depth.

[Golden Eagle]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible, they have strong philosophical differences just as the article indicates. You still haven’t proven otherwise either, of course, your posts remind me of another Linux supporter last night who kept insisting that Linux was on more than about 1% of computers surfing the web despite evidence from multiple sources that’s about it. You guys are hilarious always trying to glorify Stallman and Linux, trying to claim there’s “lots” of GPL code in BSD when there’s not, nor do they want any at all, is just another example.

[Knitebane]

Other compilers. Unlike Linux, other operating systems aren’t all dependent on gcc.

The issue isn't whether MacOS is dependent on GCC. It's whether MacOS uses GCC. And they do.

I'm sorry if that upsets your world view.

[Knitebane]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible, they have strong philosophical differences just as the article indicates.

#uname -a
OpenBSD cerberus.knitebane.net 4.0 GENERIC#3 i386

#cc --version
cc (GCC) 3.3.5 (propolice) Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

BSD often uses GPL'd code. They compile all their software with a GPL'd compiler. They link to many GPL'd libraries. BSD has never been GPL-free.

Wishing it was true doesn't make it so.

[Golden Eagle]

I never said there was “none”, just not “lots”. What is there they’d like to replace, trying to claim BSD is as dependent on Stallman as Linux is shows the absurdity if the Stallman supporters.

[Dominick]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible

Produce a document saying this from ANY BSD vendor. Anyone at all.

The rest of your post simply argues with another person, who is not me. You have not been able to prove the first assertion. You can't.

Back up what you say. BSD uses a lot of GPLed code.

[N3WBI3]

Its quite rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are in the room..

All I will say regarding the market share is in the end I said I believed between 1-3% and if you any webcounter accuratly reflects the real world at a level more granular than three percent I have a book for you to buy

[Golden Eagle]

You can start with this article obviously. It is funny watching Linux guys trying to claim true BSD folks actually support Stallman and his copyleftists though LOL.

[Dominick]

You said:No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible

I asked:Produce a document saying this from ANY BSD vendor. Anyone at all.

You answered:You can start with this article obviously

I gave my students four choices when I asked a question.

1) Yes
2) No
3) Huh?
4) Duh

This article doesn't address my question, you can't answer any question I pose to you, so as usual your answer must be, "duh".