How would you refocus Linux development?

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
They're on the same side but the BSD license is too permissive for most Linux kernel developers, they don't want Atheros to be able to take their changes and put them into a new closed source HAL.

In the case of the reverse engineered stuff Reyk did, its already in the HAL. The Linux specific stuff I understand, but the stuff that could help the rest of us would be nice to have access to.

Not at all, the software's still free and the source is still available but for the parts that have been GPL'd you still have to respect the GPL. For the parts that are BSD you can do whatever you want with them. And the GPL parts have a greater chance of staying open because they're under the GPL.

They're closed to the rest of us.

Why does GPLed code have a better chance at staying open than BSD code? Is it going to last longer? Is the BSD code just going to disappear one day because its BSD code?

So? When most people think of the BSD license they know that the code can be included in closed source software and to most people that is equal to a license change. If you're allowed to change the license from BSD->closed then why not BSD->GPL? So following that logic what's wrong with removing the BSD license when you change the project over to GPL?

Even the closed source copied need to keep those lines of text there. Thinking differently is just stupid.

 

[Nothinman]

They're closed to the rest of us.

AFAIK it's legal to redistribute GPL and BSD code together so it's not closed to you, you just have to release any source changes that are made to the GPL portions while the BSD portions can become closed. Of course if the product does become closed then things become really gray but that's for their lawyers to figure out.

Why does GPLed code have a better chance at staying open than BSD code? Is it going to last longer? Is the BSD code just going to disappear one day because its BSD code?

Because anyone who gets a binary of GPL'd code is also entitled to the sources along with whatever changes were made, the same isn't true of BSD code. Anyone can fork OpenBSD and release it under a closed source license and then any changes made by that distributer are lost.

Even the closed source copied need to keep those lines of text there. Thinking differently is just stupid.

I know this and you know this but not every one does and copyright is different around the world. Hell I bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of the BSD camp that knows the difference between the BSD license and public domain off the top of their head.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
AFAIK it's legal to redistribute GPL and BSD code together so it's not closed to you, you just have to release any source changes that are made to the GPL portions while the BSD portions can become closed. Of course if the product does become closed then things become really gray but that's for their lawyers to figure out.

It can potentially make other parts of the system fall under the GPL. Also, people have to be more careful what they do with the system (especially commercially). It gets tricky. Right now its easy.

I'm guessing someone will reverse engineer the linux changes. Shouldn't be too tough I guess, but seems like a lot of work caused by some people who claim to be all about Free software.

Because anyone who gets a binary of GPL'd code is also entitled to the sources along with whatever changes were made, the same isn't true of BSD code. Anyone can fork OpenBSD and release it under a closed source license and then any changes made by that distributer are lost.

But the original code isn't closed. I can fork a GPLed project, make tons of changes, and never release the changes. I just can't give the results to anyone.

NOTHING is lost when a company uses BSD code. In fact, there is a lot gained. The customers of those companies get higher quality code.

I don't think the GPL should be abolished or anything, it would just be nice if everyone played together a bit nicer. For example, I don't believe anything would change if the changes to Reyk's code were done under the ISC license. The rest of the code could be GPLed, and the resulting binary would be GPLed (so they get that GPL entry in the license bit for the kernel). The BSD camp gets help with the code they started, and the Linux folk get to use it too. Every one wins.

I know this and you know this but not every one does and copyright is different around the world. Hell I bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of the BSD camp that knows the difference between the BSD license and public domain off the top of their head.

Microsoft knows.

 

[Nothinman]

It can potentially make other parts of the system fall under the GPL. Also, people have to be more careful what they do with the system (especially commercially). It gets tricky. Right now its easy.

Possibly but for a driver that stands on it's own it's affect should be minimal.

NOTHING is lost when a company uses BSD code. In fact, there is a lot gained. The customers of those companies get higher quality code.

So you don't consider any changes that Apple's made and not released as part of Darwin lost?

Microsoft knows.

Yes but they have to know because they're under everyone's scrutiny. At my last job I used to hear about developers using code from "freeware" in our products without even thinking about the licensing implications, they assumed that since the source was open that they could use it however they like. Obviously an OSS developer will have a better idea about what each license means but they can't understand them all 100%. And since a lot of people tend to describe the BSD license as "totally free" or "without restrictions" when compared to the GPL, even though it's not true, a mistake like this is easy to see coming.

We should probably drop this or start another thread, I think we've derailed this one enough already. =)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It can potentially make other parts of the system fall under the GPL. Also, people have to be more careful what they do with the system (especially commercially). It gets tricky. Right now its easy.

Possibly but for a driver that stands on it's own it's affect should be minimal.

It would taint the entire kernel and make the driver potentially unavailable to plenty of people.

NOTHING is lost when a company uses BSD code. In fact, there is a lot gained. The customers of those companies get higher quality code.

So you don't consider any changes that Apple's made and not released as part of Darwin lost?

Nope, they aren't lost. They were never found, how could they be lost? Its a lost opportunity for Apple, since they limit the people that could help them clean up that mess they call OS X.

Microsoft knows.

Yes but they have to know because they're under everyone's scrutiny. At my last job I used to hear about developers using code from "freeware" in our products without even thinking about the licensing implications, they assumed that since the source was open that they could use it however they like. Obviously an OSS developer will have a better idea about what each license means but they can't understand them all 100%. And since a lot of people tend to describe the BSD license as "totally free" or "without restrictions" when compared to the GPL, even though it's not true, a mistake like this is easy to see coming.

We should probably drop this or start another thread, I think we've derailed this one enough already. =)

Why start another thread? It isn't going to go anywhere. We can drop the conversation and pick it up over beers at a later date.

 

[Nothinman]

It would taint the entire kernel and make the driver potentially unavailable to plenty of people.

The driver would be available for use, just not for use in a closed source product and that's a tradeoff that Linux developers are more than happy with.

Nope, they aren't lost. They were never found, how could they be lost? Its a lost opportunity for Apple, since they limit the people that could help them clean up that mess they call OS X.

It's also a lost opportunity for anyone wanting to see, extend, fix, etc those changes or port them to another system. The GPL fixes that problem, if you're not willing to pay the price (reciprocation of code) then you can either write it yourself from scratch or find some BSD project to pilfer.

Why start another thread? It isn't going to go anywhere. We can drop the conversation and pick it up over beers at a later date.

True, let me know whenever you end up in Pittsburgh, =)