http://www.slideshare.net/iXsystems/...-next-10-years

Looks like systemd or a system like systemd will be coming to a BSD near you.

BSD will never ever import GPLv3 code.

2 members found this post helpful.

... duh.
systemd is GPL and LGPL v2

Would you consider using systemd if Lennart didn't write it?

I think it's 2

"2 or later", which allows later relicensing. Regardless BSD aims at getting rid of GPL code completely, so they wouldn't import it anyway. They are quite safe, just for legal reasons.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase

It doesn't, whatever is produced under a certain license will keep that license.

So, you readily admit that you use products that don't implement all the features of the closed source driver? So, the companies that you're supporting are actively preventing you from fully utilizing your hardware since you're running an open source driver? It doesn't really matter whether you would use those extra features that aren't supported, because you're still supporting a limited product from a company that limits it. And saying you drive an older car doesn't mean much. Is it computer controlled, with closed-source firmware that you can't easily modify?

I'd much rather enjoy my dual climate control (since my wife gets cold easily and I don't), my nice stereo, power windows (with sensors that prevent kids from rolling the windows up on their fingers), proper safety restraints for car seats, better collision safety (including a multitude of airbags), AWD (and traction control which can be turned off when needed) to provide better traction in bad weather conditions, ABS to provide better stopping control, blind spot sensors, tire pressure sensors, etc. Would I like to be able to reprogram that stupid infotainment center to fix some bugs/stupid designs? To be able to hook my laptop up to the car's computer and modify the shiftpoints of the transmission and coax that extra bit of horsepower and torque while increasing gas mileage? Yes, of course. But I will take the safety and the comfort of modern vehicles when my family comes into play rather than some idealistic stance that would stick me with an old boat of a car, with horrible handling, poor crash performance, no modern restraint, probably bad for the environment, etc.

At least I'm willing to admit that while I'd love for everything to be open, there's consumer items that, no matter what I buy, it's impossible to satisfy every one of my desires (just like what you said with video cards). I don't like to buy products that don't meet all my desires, but sometimes, it's a necessity (and sometimes, it's a nicety). I'm willing to admit that is the case when I purchase things, but it seems you aren't.

It sounds like you're willing to seriously sacrifice some of the benefits technology has brought us because of a belief that you're making the world a better place by not supporting these "evil" companies. The only thing you're doing is limiting what you can do.

How?! The two are opposite of each other! Idealism is the belief that we should adopt moral principles, even if they have negative effects on our lives. Pragmatism is a rejection of Idealism. If the Idealists principles get in the way, the Pragmatist solves it by rejecting moral principles. Otherwise, if a video card isn't completely open source, you'd suffer without it rather than trying to justify the reasons you did buy it (it does everything *I* need it to do). If you ever go against your ideals, then you're a pragmatist. You can't decide to be one on a particular day and then switch to another when it's convenient (or even necessary).

You are just as much of a problem as I am. You just won't admit it. That being said, we're both actively supporting the companies that do help open things up, but at times, we need to go across that line and support a company that doesn't have every single ideal that we desire. There are also companies that we choose not to support because they go against too many of our ideals (although, those companies are likely different for each of us).

2 members found this post helpful.

It depends on whether the author specified "any later version", at least for the GPL, see clause 14 of the GPL 3.0 license, clause 13 of the LGPL-2.1 license or clause 9 of the GPL 2.0 license.

The systemd licence: it's LGPLv2.1+ except for udev, which is GPLv2, GPLv2+.

But anyway, we don't do facts or fact checking on this thread. Like for example, someone claiming there was a systemd-firewalld "off the top of my head" and a prominent systemd thread poster reading it and accepting it as truth without research, there's a firewalld, but that's not part of systemd. A look at the systemd git, a study resource for systemd threads whether you're pro, anti or neutral (or simply don't have a stance) towards systemd, would have found that it was not true, they could have looked at the NEWS file or looked at the directory names in the src folder. There's worse on this thread, but this was easy to point out.

Of course, now that I've said that, I need to spread some "facts". Turtles fly in the sky when no one's watching.

Hmm... well, at least the train's well engineered.

1 members found this post helpful.

Irrelevant - it's policy that GPL code is not allowed in the base system. It's safe to say that a project which goes to such lengths to remove GCC and replace it with LLVM/clang won't just rush to adopt a GPL'd init system. Amazing how some people took a slideshow about a few aspects of systemd from one FreeBSD founder/developer and immediately jumped to the conclusion that FreeBSD (and of course to most Linux users that means "BSD") will be adopting systemd.

2 members found this post helpful.

I found this funny. Thought to share. Just for laughs.

Source. Anyway, I looked into wiki history and guess what? Lennart P. (how should we pronounce that Lennart?) was one of the more prominent editors of the page.

Edit:
It seems I'm the only one seeing the comedy in this mess of the explanation. Well... To me, it sounds much more like boasting. This could've been said in one or two sentences. Which actually make it a comedy gold.

Don't know about the Intel driver, but the radeon driver needs a bunch of proprietary closed source firmware for basic functionality. So at least on those systems you are not libre at all.

BSD is direct Unix heritage and the prospect of replacing their init with something written by a Unix hater, that even doesn't work on a proper Unix filesystem hierarchy is so ridiculous, that it is amusing again.

5 members found this post helpful.

I didn't exactly do my homework, but if you read the context of what I said about firewalld rather than skim, you'll see what I meant...

Just because I don't go research every small detail, doesn't mean anything. It was a statement of the fact I hadn't known, yet. And please cue the term "yet" very well.

Yes, AMD hardware does still require binary firmware. Intel however actually has a contract with X.org for drivers, and do not require firmware. They are 100% libre.

1 members found this post helpful.