LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2013, 11:36 AM   #256
Kallaste
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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.
How dare developers "screw you" by not catering to your sense of entitlement by obediently handing you the products of their own minds and labor in the precise way you dictate? The utter nerve.

Free and open source software is not about enhancing your "freedom" by subjugating the free will of those who produced it.

Last edited by Kallaste; 05-30-2013 at 11:38 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-30-2013, 11:45 AM   #257
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-30-2013, 12:12 PM   #258
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 449

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
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.

Last edited by qweasd; 05-30-2013 at 12:38 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 12:41 PM   #259
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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).

Last edited by TobiSGD; 05-30-2013 at 12:43 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 12:52 PM   #260
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 449

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
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.

Last edited by qweasd; 05-30-2013 at 12:58 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 01:54 PM   #261
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 05-30-2013 at 01:56 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-30-2013, 04:00 PM   #262
ttk
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 193
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: 113Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
debian people did a poll about systemd
results here:
http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...y-results.html
Thank you for posting this. It's unfortunate, and surprising to me, that Debian devs would welcome systemd -- I always thought of Debian as "the other safe/sane distribution".
 
Old 05-30-2013, 05:13 PM   #263
Captain Pinkeye
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Location: The Czech Republic
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
Thank you for posting this. It's unfortunate, and surprising to me, that Debian devs would welcome systemd -- I always thought of Debian as "the other safe/sane distribution".
Same here, still i think their FreeBSD and HURD ports prevents that, protecting portability is IMHO the only reason Debian has those ports anyway.

But from the article:
Quote:
Are you a Debian Developer (DD) or Debian Maintainer (DM) or otherwise currently maintaining Debian packages?
262 Yes
311 No
Interesting.

Well, anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Tiger View Post
Please refer to this LQ thread on this subject.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ystemd-885228/

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.
So see ya on page 70!
 
Old 05-30-2013, 08:47 PM   #264
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,415
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965
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.

Quote:
Would you personally want systemd as the default init system in Debian?
252 Yes
136 I don’t know
185 No
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?"

Quote:
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.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 10:32 PM   #265
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 449

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
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+.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 11:02 PM   #266
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,415
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965Reputation: 965
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.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 06:11 AM   #267
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 07:44 AM   #268
tangle
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Smithville, TN
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,745

Rep: Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
My heart is actually with a world without copyright
Do you believe in personal property at any level or do you think everything should be free for everybody?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-31-2013, 07:48 AM   #269
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,866

Rep: Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
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!
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-31-2013, 08:36 AM   #270
syncBQ
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 0
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 08:41 AM. Reason: adding more stuff
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
cgroups


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Slackware: Is Systemd Inevitable? LXer Syndicated Linux News 5 07-22-2013 04:54 AM
[SOLVED] slackware and systemd fl0 Slackware 512 08-29-2012 11:07 AM
slackware and systemd (OT) eloi Slackware 44 08-24-2012 04:36 PM
[SOLVED] systemd and Slackware's future kikinovak Slackware 95 07-14-2012 11:40 AM
Boot Delay 30min: systemd-analyze blame systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service BGHolmes Fedora 0 07-27-2011 09:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration