SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Not at all. But if their intention is to screw me and all other free software users, then I don't see why we need to cater to that.
You can't use GPL licensed code in BSD or MIT licensed projects. So one could argue that the GPL is screwing the BSD people and they should not cater to that.
Sun has chosen to license ZFS under the CDDL, for what reason is irrelevant. It would be quite hypocritical to demand from other people to adhere to the license of your choice when you are not willing to respect their choices.
You can't use GPL licensed code in BSD or MIT licensed projects.
What are you talking about? Both are compatible with GPL. And I am willing to respect their choices, but not their intentions. I am not proposing to ignore CDDL, but I see no shame in subverting its original purpose by using legitimate means.
And just to be clear, I don't stand anywhere on the ZFS issue. I am perfectly happy with ext, but if I wasn't, it'd be a different matter.
What are you talking about? Both are compatible with GPL.
This compatibility is only in one direction. You can use BSD code in GPL projects, but you can't use GPL code in BSD projects. That would be a derived work and you had to relicense it. The same problem appears when you want to use GPL licensed libraries in a non-GPL project, that is why the LGPL was invented in the first place. That was for example also a reason (besides the issues with the Apple store) to relicense VLC as LGPL (from GPL).
This compatibility is only in one direction. You can use BSD code in GPL projects, but you can't use GPL code in BSD projects. That would be a derived work and you had to relicense it.
I don't see what the issue is. I can combine BSD (or MIT) and GPL code and distribute the sum without asking anyone's permission under GPL. Sorry, edit: how exactly am I screwing BSD people? If they want to use GPL code, they are free to do so by adding another license to their code. This only hurts the proprietary software racket, so the result is just as free as it used to be.
I don't see what the issue is. I can combine BSD (or MIT) and GPL code and distribute the sum without asking anyone's permission under GPL.
As I said, you can't mix GPL code into BSD code and distribute that under the BSD license. This is where the compatibility ends, making it impossible for BSD people to use GPL licensed code in their (obviously BSD licensed) projects. So, with licensing your code under GPL you screw BSD developers, making it impossible for them to use the code, in the same way as licensing code under CDDL makes it impossible to use that code in GPL licensed projects. Following your reasoning, the BSD people should use any loophole they find to use your code anyways, even if that is not what you want.
If you would like to comment on an aspect of systemd with regards to Slackware that was not already included or referenced in that 513 post thread then please speak up. Please read all posts in that thread (the systemd related ones) and read all referenced links before posting.
If Debian eliminates choice by offering systemd as the default init rather than an alternative to sysvinit, they might as well just destroy Debian and flush every bit of work they've done down the toilet. No point in using Debian if systemd is the default because after you install systemd and start building around it, it becomes a pain in the arse to remove safely without destroying dependencies it creates.
Debian would be much better off either sticking with sysvinit or even migrating into Gentoo's OpenRC or Ubuntu's Upstart which both work with sysvinit and not against it. However this result more than leads me to believe that this "poll" was poorly done.
Would you personally want systemd as the default init system in Debian?
136 I don’t know
That's a good number of people total who do NOT want systemd in as the default init system and a good number of people who are saying in all technicality, "Why do we need systemd?"
I am happy to tell that 2113 people had a look at the survey and 573 people actually participated. Of those, 45.7% said they are a DD, DM or otherwise maintaining packages. 74.5% said they actually booted and used a computer running systemd.
With regards to having systemd in Debian at all, not necessarily as the default init system, answers are as follows:
62.4% voted “I welcome systemd in Debian, everything is fine”
14.1% are not sure yet.
8.0% don’t care.
15.3% don’t want systemd in Debian.
Now I'm confused by these numbers. I know some people don't want it, or want it at least as optional, but realistically, it seems even if systemd is welcomed by Debian, there's more than enough consensus to say, keep it here, but keep it optional.
Let's just hope they don't make it the default or else we are really in for some problems.
Following your reasoning, the BSD people should use any loophole they find to use your code anyways, even if that is not what you want.
Sure, why not. But wait, what would they be achieving by un-GPLing software? Who does that help? In the current copyright climate, only non-free software makers and vendors will be benefited by that action, so that's hostile to all users. This is a much better reason not to do it, and I can live with them ignoring my intentions.
It is really sad that we have to spend all this time and effort just to reconcile free software licenses. I don't think that GPL is inherently better than BSD. My heart is actually with a world without copyright (but with a right to attribution), where using any code is as easy as using BSD-licensed code. With the copyright law the way it is, though, I feel like we need all the edge we can get, and currently that means GPLv3+.
In terms of compatibility with licenses and freedoms granted the authors and contributors... The MIT license always has been the most open and free license. It has few limitations if any real licensing conflicts with any other existing open-source and closed-source licenses.
Sure, why not. But wait, what would they be achieving by un-GPLing software? Who does that help? In the current copyright climate, only non-free software makers and vendors will be benefited by that action, so that's hostile to all users.
It will help BSD developers and BSD users. With the ability to use GPL'ed code they would for example have less problems porting graphics drivers to the BSD systems.
But that is not really the point. The point is that licenses should be respected, regardless with which intention they were.
My heart is actually with a world without copyright (but with a right to attribution), where using any code is as easy as using BSD-licensed code. With the copyright law the way it is, though, I feel like we need all the edge we can get, and currently that means GPLv3+.
Are you sure about that? In a world without Copyright the GPL has no power. This means that someone could take your code, improve upon it and make the net result proprietary. They would not have to publish their changes for your benefit. Careful what you wish for!
I have read some of the comments here and this is what I think in this moment.
Since the introduction of systemd, I have been searching for a distro that has an active community, will use the old init style and let the user be in total control of its system. Funny enough, you will count on fingers the distro that has those traits. Thus I came to Slackware.
Now, Red Hat is not stupid. As many other companies, they are trying to make money out of linux. They easily introduced some apparent good stuff in order for ppl to come to them for payed support. They hooked the upstream/distro developers with faster boot times at a cost of managing/debugging init system much harder than previous one. I suspect that in time, the complexity to grow at such a level that support will be needed. Then since almost all distros will be using it, Red Hat will benefit (if they aren't already).
The same with pulseaudio. Trojan project between alsa and application. Maybe this was good when crappy OSS was all powerfull but not now in alsa reign.
Anyway, this is interesting to see where it will all goes.
PS: I read a comment of why Linus T. don't intervene. This is because he doesn't give a damn about what happens above its kernel (and he is right). This is all on middle-ware developers.
Last edited by syncBQ; 05-31-2013 at 09:41 AM.
Reason: adding more stuff