FreeBSD disagrees with the FSF?

[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.

 

[ralphbsz]

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.

 

[obsigna]

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.

 

[CoTones]

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...

 

[moridin]

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...

For free, making a notice that parts of the code were written by you though (see the 2nd clause).

 

[RodrigoBSD]

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.

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.

 

[ralphbsz]

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,

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.

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.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

that's nonsense.

I just want to itereate the same statement.

 

[kpedersen]

Actually BSD license means that any company can take your code for free and out compete you as the software inventor and developer.

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).

 

[RodrigoBSD]

[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,

 

[phillipsjk]

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.

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.

 

[freq]

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.

So true! I need the MANual and not some information.

 

[CraigHB]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Beastie7]

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.

 

[rigoletto@]

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.

 

[fr0xk]

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD ls are rejected from FSF endorsement because BSDs prioritize freedom of choice over rigid ideology of free software extremism. These BSD systems empower users to decide whether to use nonfree software (don't want to use non free firmware, then don't use non free hardware, but if you do, then *BSD is going to load non free firmware if it's legally allowed to do so), unlike the FSF’s strict requirements for derivatives to stay open based on GPL v3 standard complaints. The FSF attacks BSDs for using proprietary firmware (“blobs”), but BSDs place that decision in the hands of the user, only loading firmware as needed. OpenBSD excludes nonfree drivers, but none of the BSDs bow to the FSF's extreme restrictions on user control. The issue is simple: the FSF can’t handle that BSDs trust users to make their own choices (source:https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html)

Criticism of the FSF doesn’t stop there. Reports from former FSF developers accuse the organization of cultivating a toxic, abusive environment marked by extremism and virtue signaling. I, now see the FSF—and especially RMS—as divisive forces in the open-source community and a net negative player

 

[freebuser]

I use for a very long time all these OS's:
1. Windows
2. Linux
3. FreeBSD

As far as I can see/remember, none of them fall off the cliff due to its selection of licensing...

 

[T-Aoki]

Frankly, FSF disagreed BSD licenses, as they (including variants) allow the codes to be re-used even in proprietary, closed-source softwares.
As already mentioned before, BSD licenses are older than GPL.
My understanding is:

• BSD-compatible licenses are good for corporates who cannot disclose their (modified) codes due to NDA and so on, as they doesn't force them to disclose their codes.
• GPL is good for corporates that want to contribute their (non-NDA'ed) codes, as it forces other parties that want to re-use the codes to disclose their modifications.

So both are strongly wanted in the wild.

 

[BaronBS]

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD ls are rejected from FSF endorsement because BSDs prioritize freedom of choice over rigid ideology of free software extremism. These BSD systems empower users to decide whether to use nonfree software (don't want to use non free firmware, then don't use non free hardware, but if you do, then *BSD is going to load non free firmware if it's legally allowed to do so), unlike the FSF’s strict requirements for derivatives to stay open based on GPL v3 standard complaints. The FSF attacks BSDs for using proprietary firmware (“blobs”), but BSDs place that decision in the hands of the user, only loading firmware as needed. OpenBSD excludes nonfree drivers, but none of the BSDs bow to the FSF's extreme restrictions on user control. The issue is simple: the FSF can’t handle that BSDs trust users to make their own choices (source:https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html)

Criticism of the FSF doesn’t stop there. Reports from former FSF developers accuse the organization of cultivating a toxic, abusive environment marked by extremism and virtue signaling. I, now see the FSF—and especially RMS—as divisive forces in the open-source community and a net negative player

"Home to Hypocrisy"

 

[ralphbsz]

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD ls are rejected from FSF endorsement because BSDs prioritize freedom of choice over rigid ideology of free software extremism. These BSD systems empower users to decide whether to use nonfree software (don't want to use non free firmware, then don't use non free hardware, but if you do, then *BSD is going to load non free firmware if it's legally allowed to do so), unlike the FSF’s strict requirements for derivatives to stay open based on GPL v3 standard complaints. The FSF attacks BSDs for using proprietary firmware (“blobs”), but BSDs place that decision in the hands of the user, only loading firmware as needed. OpenBSD excludes nonfree drivers, but none of the BSDs bow to the FSF's extreme restrictions on user control. The issue is simple: the FSF can’t handle that BSDs trust users to make their own choices (source:https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html)

Not exactly wrong, but the issue with the FSF (an advocacy organization) and its relationship with other software groups is much more complex than what you wrote here. Yes, the FSF has a purist view, and the word "virtue signaling" that you used describes them well. But the FSF is perfectly happy to work with other people and organizations that don't have their views. For example, the FSF endorses some Linux distributions ...

Criticism of the FSF doesn’t stop there. I, now see the FSF—and especially RMS—as divisive forces in the open-source community and a net negative player

Well, RMS also "endorsed" sex with underage girls at one point: the (in-)famous drama after the director of the MIT Media Lab (RMS's employer and host) was found to be cavorting with Epstein, and RMS decided it was appropriate to defend them in public. At that point, he left both MIT and the FSF; strangely, the FSF put him back on its board of directors later.

But I agree that RMS's religious proselytizing of the copyleft viewpoint has done much harm, and little good. He is a fanatic, but certain people see him as a god-like figure.

 

[sidetone]

GNU, and FSF actually like permissive licenses for libraries. GPL and permissive licenses are extreme opposites. It's a contradiction when people say they like most permissive licenses, but dislike GPL, because permissive licenses allow themselves to get eaten up by GPL. Permissive licenses make sense when an organization is big enough to maintain it, such as Postgresql, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc. Otherwise when it's not maintained as such, GPL puts their stamp on it, and turns the whole thing into GPL, due to its viral nature, and they become the maintainers.

I like Apache 2.0, MPL2, CDDL1.1. While Apache 2.0 is permissive, I like that, code can be re-separated from GPL2, since the original code is marked. CDDL1.1 is for protecting business assets, while allowing them to share it, which is way more honest than GPL, since often business code is often dual licensed with proprietary and GPL, which a company gets to use that to disadvantage the open source community. File-based licenses which are often weak copyleft licenses are some of the best. My only issue with Apache 2.0 is that it's often made the Linux way, but it doesn't have to be, and with enough staff, it can be made without using Linux like dependencies.

The biggest issue with GPL is that it doesn't allow the use of libraries of dynamic linking without absorbing it. So, you have Sndio multi licensed because of that, to be friendly with GPL code. More importantly, it forces its viralness downwards into libraries, when it shouldn't. At minimum, GPL should allow it to use libraries through dynamic linking. The condition to use libraries, shouldn't be that LGPL and permissive licenses permit themselves to become GPL.

We need a license which is file based, except being directory based, and which doesn't ever restrict dynamic linking from it. While CDDL2.0 does its purpose on protecting code from viralness, it would be stronger in this regard and protect code in a far better way from GPL.

There's Thread licensing-rant-debate-thread.90051. I wrote a proposal for such a directory-based, dynamic linking preserved license there.