GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
FreeBSD is a variant of Unix and is also at the core of Mac OS X
This indicates that Mac OS X is a derivative work of FreeBSD, albeit with a modified Mach kernel, Mach (no, not a misspelling) originally being GNU. Apple added proprietary device support and a proprietary GUI, replacing the licenses and therefore exploiting FOSS.
And IMHO, any derivative work is considered a distro.
About that version of Windows: It had no POSIX compliance and no UNIX-like OS structure or FS hierarchy of any kind. To be based on FreeBSD, it has to behave like FreeBSD and have more than just some FreeBSD code, and that's where the difference between Windows and OS X lies. It has to have all or most of the kernel's code to be able to be a derivative work.
Last edited by Kenny_Strawn; 06-06-2010 at 11:13 AM.
The project at Carnegie Mellon ran from 1985 to 1994, ending with Mach 3.0. Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of UNIX, so no new operating system would have to be designed around it. Today further experimental research on Mach appears to have ended, although Mach and its derivatives are in use in a number of commercial operating systems, such as NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and most notably Mac OS X using the XNU operating system kernel which incorporates Mach as a major component. The Mach virtual memory management system was also adopted by the BSD developers at CSRG, and appears in modern BSD-derived UNIX systems, such as FreeBSD. Neither Mac OS X nor FreeBSD maintain the microkernel structure pioneered in Mach, although Mac OS X continues to offer microkernel Inter-Process Communication and control primitives for use directly by applications.
Yes. The desktop market is where M$ is dominant, and on the server Linux is dominant. However, even that's changing. I know for a fact that Obama is a HUGE advocate of FOSS and is deploying it on all government computers as I write. Soon the tables will turn, considering that even the Justice Department, which used to be M$-friendly, is starting to deploy FOSS.
Yes, MS dominates the desktop market however Linux doesn't dominate the server market--MS still has close to 50% of the server market. Linux dominates nothing really.
I prefer GNU/Linux due to the GPL. It can be argued that BSD might be "more" free, but I don't like how it allows something free to be "caged". The way I see it, GPL gives freedom to the user, and BSD and the like give freedom to the author. My personal views are the end users' freedoms are the ones I want to support.
Since the BSD license allows individuals to modify code and not return those modifications to the community, the end users are prevented from seeing the source code to software they may use based off of the original code. The users of the software are therefore prevented from making their own modifications to the modified code. Once a piece of software is licensed under the GPL, users will always be able to get the source for any modifications to that code (as long as it is distributed and not just used internally by an individual or organization). This limits the author by not allowing them to take GPL code and make a proprietary system out of it, but it ensures that GPL source will always be available to the end users.
Wouldn't it be more productive to accept the respective licenses of the different Open Source projects and work as a group? Seems to me like it is minor bickering over whose dog took the biggest shit on the sidewalk.
If I write a program and allow you to use it, I am granting you a license to use that program with the cost being something in return. I have several choices for this:
1) you pay me with money or something else of physical value
2) you pay me by agreeing to do something
3) you don't pay me at all
Proprietary software typically is the first option. BSD doesn't ask for any payment in return at all. The GPL requires that you agree to something to use the software, that being that if you make changes to it, your license fee for the use of the original code is to keep the same license on your changes. The problem with the BSD model (IMO) is that it goes against the desires I have for my software. I created it to help others. All I ask in return is that you pay it forward by helping others as well. And through the GPL, I am forcing you to not be greedy by preventing you from taking what I've given you and hoarding it.
The BSD license doesn't offer me that ability, and therefore I won't publish my software under it. I also see no need in supporting software written under that license as it goes against what I envision as the perfect software community.
I personally like the "keep it free" aspect of the GPL. I also don't understand at all why BSD supporters wouldn't want the same, but that isn't my software, and it isn't my license.
The software I develop as personal projects is protected by an ISC license, which is similar to the 2-clause BSD license. I publish the software in the event that other programmers and/or end-users will be able to find use for it.
Should an individual or a group of individuals be interested in using my code in a commercial project, I would have no objections to it. Should the resulting product be closed source is also fine as far as I am concerned. If "users" favor open source they are free to not purchase nor use the product.
forrestt mentions that he sees no need in supporting my software. I can only follow up by saying that I do not need nor desire his support. By contrast, I can not object to developers who choose GPL (or other) licenses for the software they create. I will support their projects if they are of quality and I can make use of them.
Doesn't sound like freedom to me if you are forcing me to accept your terms.
Where does it say in the BSD license that you cannot or do not have to provide source code? That option is up to the programmer. The user has the option of choosing which program best suits his or her needs. If that program is under a BSD license or a GPL version should not matter more than the programs function.
I believe the term for a BSD license is "permissive."
I don't use the systems solely on the basis of political ideology. Open Source software is my preference and it stops there. Systems are chosen based upon functionality, compatibility, and stability. Users that increase familiarity and exposure to multiple operating systems develop a different perspective to this argument.
If my dog shits on the sidewalk, does it matter what brand pooper scooper I use to get it up?
By support I do not mean allow you to do it or help you do it, I mean provide end users with answers to the troubles they may have or fix bugs in your code.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
