FreeBSD disagrees with the FSF?

R

RodrigoBSD

Something I would like to know is if FreeBSD disagrees with the FSF or it is simply a matter of licensing not to use tools such as GCC, Bash among many by default, I really do not understand it because if GCC like Bash is free software and open source like Tcsh, csh or ksh

I suppose it must be because of being more independent of the GNU software and using more permissive licenses to obtain better results because the licenses with copyleft do not think that they are very attractive to the developers of BSD systems, for my part I think that and the truth I do not like copyleft licenses because more is that the software remains free and open source software do not depart much from a dictatorship or a sect besides permissive licenses such as the BSD with its 3 versions, the MIT license or Apache offers you everything that licenses with copyleft and more debauchery which I like very much and I think that BSD developers do not think very differently.
 
Does anyone have a few good links to the history of BSD, the licensing situation, and such?

To begin with: BSD is older than the FSF. It is sort of crazy to ask whether BSD (or FreeBSD) agrees or disagrees with something, because there is no single czar or emperor there. That's different from the FSF/Gnu organization (which has a king-like figure, namely RMS), and the Linux organization (which has another king, Linus).

BSD has always had a different license. The goal of the original BSD people (the staff of the CSRG department at UC Berkeley) was to do research on a functioning Unix derivative, not to push some viewpoint about free software. Their license was designed to facilitate the distribution of their software between research labs. A lot of that history has stuck.

Whether the Gnu or the BSD licenses are better is an issue of much debate. The art and science of free software licenses is very complex, nothing one can explain in a paragraph. The licenses have a deep impact on the software distribution model, which then changes how the software is used and how it grows.
 
For me as a developer, the BSD/MIT style licenses have the really big advantage of brevity (BSD 2 clause got 1261 characters) and I can put it at the head of my publicly open sources. Anybody is able to understand, follow and use this kind of licenses.

The GPL3 comes in 35149 characters, and you need to read in addition the Quick Guide, the FAQ's and the HowTo's in order to use, reuse or deploy GPL3 software, not to mention the necessity of contracting a lawyer to be really on the safe side - although, I am not exactly sure about being save with a lawyer.

Anyway, I won't use this blunt of BS.
 
Actually BSD license means that any company can take your code for free and out compete you as the software inventor and developer. If you behave company may hire you and even pay...
 
CoTones said:
Actually BSD license means that any company can take your code for free and out compete you as the software inventor and developer. If you behave company may hire you and even pay...
Click to expand...

For free, making a notice that parts of the code were written by you though (see the 2nd clause).
 
ralphbsz said:
Does anyone have a few good links to the history of BSD, the licensing situation, and such?

To begin with: BSD is older than the FSF. It is sort of crazy to ask whether BSD (or FreeBSD) agrees or disagrees with something, because there is no single czar or emperor there. That's different from the FSF/Gnu organization (which has a king-like figure, namely RMS), and the Linux organization (which has another king, Linus).

BSD has always had a different license. The goal of the original BSD people (the staff of the CSRG department at UC Berkeley) was to do research on a functioning Unix derivative, not to push some viewpoint about free software. Their license was designed to facilitate the distribution of their software between research labs. A lot of that history has stuck.

Whether the Gnu or the BSD licenses are better is an issue of much debate. The art and science of free software licenses is very complex, nothing one can explain in a paragraph. The licenses have a deep impact on the software distribution model, which then changes how the software is used and how it grows.
Click to expand...
I know something about the history of BSD, although their intention was not to create a free Unix operating system in the end they ended up doing it because the FSF asked them to open the code, there is enough to talk about but today FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, which are the main operating systems from which the other BSDs derive (except those from Apple that only took a certain code from one of them) are free and open source software operating systems for whatever reasons, I don't think who want to leave that development model for something more private both in part for the freedom of free and open source software as well as for its pragmatic effects. Regarding that it is better if free software licenses with copyleft are permissive or not or those that do not have obvious copyleft, the latter win because they allow you to do what you want with your software as it should be in addition to promoting competitiveness and not getting involved within a totalitarian regime as the Free Software Foundation does with its toxic licenses.
 
RodrigoBSD said:
I know something about the history of BSD, although their intention was not to create a free Unix operating system in the end they ended up doing it because the FSF asked them to open the code,
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's nonsense. BSD has existed since the late 70s, with a large push of development happening in the early 80s. This was long before the FSF even existed. And BSD has had its license since that time, and not because the FSF (or RMS) pushed on them.
EDIT: Sorry, the initial version of the post said "since the late 80s", but that's clearly late 70s. The big push was really early 80s.

... the latter win because they allow you to do what you want with your software as it should be in addition to promoting competitiveness and not getting involved within a totalitarian regime as the Free Software Foundation does with its toxic licenses.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion. There are lots of people in the world who have different opinions. Some of those people are very obnoxious and aggressive about their opinions. This topic is very complex, and individual opinions matter little.

My personal opinion is: I'm happy to use *BSD (not only FreeBSD but some others too), Linux, MacOS, and several proprietary systems. They are all usable, some more so, some less so. They are also quite different from each other, and many of their differences are explainable by their development model and workflow, which is in turn to some extent determined by the licenses.
 
CoTones said:
Actually BSD license means that any company can take your code for free and out compete you as the software inventor and developer.
Click to expand...

If they really like your code or idea but you license it under the GPL; a large corporation will simply re-implement it. You either need to protect the idea or build a very strong brand that they cannot compete with.

The view that code is "precious" is a little bit 90's. I find this kind of attitude is still most prevalent in the games industry and that is why everyone is still very much stuck on Wintel. Enterprise computing is starting to grow up a bit and realising that releasing source code doesn't cause piracy. It is still illegal to use if you do not own the license.

Also, standard GPL generally wont protect you in the world of cloud; you would more be looking at Affero GPL (cant create a remote service using your code without sharing their private source).
 
[CITA = "ralphbsz, publicación: 436614, miembro: 30524"]
Lo siento, eso no tiene sentido. BSD ha existido desde fines de la década de 1980, con un gran impulso de desarrollo a principios de la década de 1980. Esto fue mucho antes de que exista la FSF. Y BSD ha tenido su licencia desde ese momento, y no porque la FSF (o RMS) los haya presionado.


Esa es tu opinión. Hay muchas personas en el mundo que tienen opiniones diferentes. Algunas de esas personas son muy desagradables y agresivas con sus opiniones. Este tema es muy complejo y las opiniones individuales importan poco.


Mi opinión personal es: estoy feliz de usar * BSD (no solo FreeBSD sino también algunos otros), Linux, MacOS y varios sistemas propietarios. Todos son utilizables, algunos más, otros menos. También son bastante diferentes entre sí, y muchas de sus diferencias se explican por su modelo de desarrollo y flujo de trabajo, que a su vez está limitado en ciertas medidas por las licencias.
[/ CITAR]

en resumen, depende de si acepta cumplir con todos los requisitos de la GPL para que un trabajo derivado siga software libre y de código abierto o use el BSD con menos restricciones para desarrollar software libre, llegando a alguien que aproveche su trabajo y lo hace privado o usted mismo tiene un software propietario con esa licencia. Con respecto a FSF y GNU, como dije, me gusta mucho, no se trata del tema, como dije, era solo una broma sobre el régimen totalitario, la dictadura, la sección y las licencias tóxicas, así que no lo tomes mal, todos los modos de mis sistemas operativos favoritos son FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, con respecto al tema de las licencias,
 
Last edited:
English is the preferred language here (google translate below)

in short, it depends on whether you agree to comply with all the requirements of the GPL so that a derivative work follows free and open source software or uses the BSD with less restrictions to develop free software, reaching someone who takes advantage of their work and makes it private or You have proprietary software yourself with that license, in general it is much riskier to use more permissive licenses at the cost of having your work debauchery. With respect to FSF and GNU, as I said, I like it very much, it is not about the subject, as I said, it was just a joke about the totalitarian regime, dictatorship, section and toxic licenses, so do not take it badly, All modes my favorite operating systems are FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, regarding the issue of licensing, I prefer not copyleft.
Click to expand...

I prefer copyleft myself: mainly because I hate proprietary stuff. I dabble in FreeBSD because I like the emphasis on documentation. Used OpenBSD at school, and found every command having a functional man() page enlightening. The GNU way is to use info pages: but I have to look up how to navigate them every time I want to read one.
 
I really like the FreeBSD license. Though as a user the licensing scheme is transparent on my end. However the FBSD license makes things easier on developers which provides the opportunity for more software in my future as a user. I've read a few claims the GNU license is overbearing. The FreeBSD license is just another one of those things that makes me happy about using it, there's a bunch of those things.
phillipsjk said:
The GNU way is to use info pages: but I have to look up how to navigate them every time I want to read one.
Click to expand...

That's another one of those things I like about FreeBSD. Info pages are a pain and I can never remember how to navigate them either.
 
I consider the BSD license THE 'true' free software license. It's free software with no strings attached, no choice restrictions, no BS. People can do what they want, and while the authors still have their own piece. But the moment you make it proprietary; you lose all benefits of open source. It keeps people honest in a way, IMO.
 
DISCLAMER: Free Software Foundation (FSF), Open Source Initiative (OSI), FreeBSD Foundation, Linux Foundation etc. are nothing but legal entities with ZERO authority over anything but what is directly under and controlled by them (inside their legally owned structure) or secured by contract. They have ZERO power to impose or define anything to any one other than to those whom are willing to follow them - otherwise they all are completely irrelevant.

They are not public entities with specific powers given by law, and ever if they were their power would be restricted inside that particular jurisdiction.

Well, ever UN has almost no power to impose anything to anyone other than by it's Security Council's resolutions, and just when the resolution is binded to the Chapter 7 of the UN charter, because this is the only way to make a binding resolution (and those are super rare). Same, the International Court of Justice has no power to do a forced execution of its decisions other by a Security Council resolution under the Chapter 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top