kFreeBSD anyone ?

alie

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 54
Messages: 575

for me its like DekstopBSD or PC-BSD...

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a port of the Debian operating system that consists of the GNU userland, GNU C library, Debian package management (dpkg, apt etc.) and system tools, on top of the FreeBSD kernel.

they're porting GNU app to FreeBSD, samething like ports
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

alie said:
for me its like DekstopBSD or PC-BSD...



they're porting GNU app to FreeBSD, samething like ports

To me it is like bunch of people trying to GPL kernel that they like but happens to have BSD license. Project was officially halted couple years ago but seems that there are some who will not learn the lecture until they are taken to court.
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

Oko: Or you can see it as a compliment. They admit that our kernel is so good they want to use it in their system. ;)
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

Pushrod said:
Waste of time.
This is what's wrong with the internet these days.

It's a silly, fascinating, weird little frankensteinian hobby project that I'm sure they find entertaining to work on.
Yes, it's a waste of time. So is reading fiction or restoring old cars.
 

Brandybuck

Active Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 147

I just wish they would take the silly "GNU" off the name. You don't name an OS after the libc. The only genuine GNU OS out there is GNU/Hurd. Other stuff may use a few GNU parts, but that is insufficient to give GNU naming rights over it.
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

Djn said:
Oko: Or you can see it as a compliment. They admit that our kernel is so good they want to use it in their system. ;)

It is much more serious thing than you would think. There are
serious intellectual and legal ramification. Most OpenBSD guys love DTrace and ZFS but nobody tried to port it to OpenBSD and then change the license from CDDL to BSD. You might like your neighbor's wife but that doesn't mean it is OK to have sex with her. This is not the place nor the time to discuss issues involved in GPL-ing somebody's code.
 

kamikaze

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 76
Messages: 365

Brandybuck said:
The only genuine GNU OS out there is GNU/Hurd.
You mean it actually exists?

On topic, if it was similar to ports it wouldn't exchange the libc.
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

Oko said:
It is much more serious thing than you would think. There are
serious intellectual and legal ramification. Most OpenBSD guys love DTrace and ZFS but nobody tried to port it to OpenBSD and then change the license from CDDL to BSD. You might like your neighbor's wife but that doesn't mean it is OK to have sex with her. This is not the place nor the time to discuss issues involved in GPL-ing somebody's code.

They're perfectly within their rights to GPL (or close-source, or whatever) BSD code. Keeping people from doing such things is what gave us the GPL in the first place.

Not that they are - last time I looked (admittedly a long time ago) they were perfectly content to leave the license on the kernel alone. It's probably easier for them to change the kernel as little as possible, so they can easily swap in a newer FreeBSD kernel.

And calm down with the examples. Remember, some people do this because they think it's fun. It's not a personal insult to you, nor an insult to FreeBSD, nor illegal. The worst you can definitely say is that they have a bad taste in userlands. :)
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

Djn said:
They're perfectly within their rights to GPL (or close-source, or whatever) BSD code. Keeping people from doing such things is what gave us the GPL in the first place.

HAHAHAHAHA. You made my day. Let me make a wild guess. You are not a law student;) I would suggest you to be careful with such statements because they can really get you in deep legal troubles especially if you live in U.S.
 

kamikaze

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 76
Messages: 365

Well, you mustn't remove the original license, but you can add the GPL as well.
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

Ok, time to rephrase and partially disagree with my earlier post.
One point to Oko for making me look closer at this, which balances out the point subtracted for the style. ;)

1) Replacing a license with another, either direction: Not ok.
2) Adding chunks of BSD-licensed code (retaining license) into GPL code? Ok.
3) Adding chunks of GPL-licensed code (retaining license) into BSD code? Not ok.
4) Non-trivially modifying BSD-licensed code and adding a GPL license to the resulting work? Unsure. I'd guess "ok".
5) Adding the GPL license while retaining the BSD one as well, with no or trivial changes to the code? Unsure, but I'd guess "not ok".
6) Compiling a binary from some BSD sources and some GPL sources: Ok, though don't ask me how much of the source code you'd have to provide.

Better?

As for debian/kFreeBSD, I doubt they're doing any of this, anyway. You can use an unmodified FreeBSD kernel with their userland, and they move to newer FreeBSD kernels now and then. From their POV, messing with the kernel license would be a wasted effort.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

From my point of view: meet Dr. Frankensteins very own distro or just nonsense. I don't see any advantage using the FBSD kernel only, because FreeBSD is a complete system and developed as such.
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

It's essentially just debian with a different kernel; the userland experience isn't likely to be much different. And it's not without benefits: It's a test of portability and kernel/userland-separation for both sides.

Still, yes - I don't think it's the most useful distro/OS ever. ;)
 

Brandybuck

Active Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 147

You can compile BSD code and release the binary under any license, including the GPL. But you cannot change the BSD license it self. It must always be attached to the source code. In other words, you may sublicense however you want, but you may not relicense.
 

rliegh

Member

Reaction score: 5
Messages: 54

oliverh said:
From my point of view: meet Dr. Frankensteins very own distro or just nonsense. I don't see any advantage using the FBSD kernel only, because FreeBSD is a complete system and developed as such.
There's a much stronger argument for using the NetBSD kernel -on the Debian/NetBSD port's page they essentially say that they want to take advantage of NetBSD's portability and the fact it runs on so many platforms.

The FreeBSD kernel doesn't really offer enough of an advantage to swap it in in place of the Linux kernel.

[uneducated opinion]
Of course, tinkering with the kernel in the first place is the wrong thing to focus on. The Debian folks would be a lot better off spending their time porting glibc to different platforms and getting it to compile than anything else. They'd end up with a more portable libc, and it would make porting "Debian" to new platforms much easier.
[/uneducated opinion]

If you can close off BSD code behind a proprietary license -as was done many times during the 80's and 90's- then I see no reason that you couldn't hide a BSD kernel behind a GNU license.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

>If you can close off BSD code behind a proprietary license -as was done many times during the 80's and 90's- then I see no reason that you couldn't hide a BSD kernel behind a GNU license.

It's not about hiding anything, it's about using in the proper environment. And I don't think using the kernel only will result in anything useful - in my opinion the development from one source is a major advantage of *BSD. Btw. Gentoo has got a similar project.
 

tobe

Member

Reaction score: 9
Messages: 92

On one side, Debian is a really good distro, packages are stable and well configured.
On the other side, FreeBSD kernel without FreeBSD userland just doesn't make sense.
 

Oko

Daemon

Reaction score: 793
Messages: 1,620

tobe said:
On one side, Debian is a really good distro, packages are stable and well configured.
On the other side, FreeBSD kernel without FreeBSD userland just doesn't make sense.
One one hand Debian packages are broken. Debian people have a nasty habit of patching, tweaking, and re-licensing upstream code.
Typical example of that behavior is what they did to cdrtools or
the mess they created with OpenSSL.Apt-get is broken for serious users. In terms of kernel they have nothing to offer because the kernel is 90% RedHat work. Some things are just plain broken in Linux period. Like dump for instance.

On the another hand FreeBSD kernel without using userland makes no sense as its puts you in disadvantage with respect to the number of kernel drivers as well as number of proprietary applications which are certified to run on FreeBSD.

So it is lose-lose situation which looks to me as a bad joke.
 

Djn

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 67
Messages: 392

If you get anymore negative you'll start ionizing. :)
 

malexe

Member

Reaction score: 2
Messages: 33

Oko said:
One one hand Debian packages are broken. Debian people have a nasty habit of patching, tweaking, and re-licensing upstream code.
Typical example of that behavior is what they did to cdrtools or
the mess they created with OpenSSL.Apt-get is broken for serious users. In terms of kernel they have nothing to offer because the kernel is 90% RedHat work. Some things are just plain broken in Linux period. Like dump for instance.

On the another hand FreeBSD kernel without using userland makes no sense as its puts you in disadvantage with respect to the number of kernel drivers as well as number of proprietary applications which are certified to run on FreeBSD.

So it is lose-lose situation which looks to me as a bad joke.


Oko, I think you should take it more easy, seriously there is nothing wrong with them doing this. If there are having fun doing, that is all that matters.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

malexe said:
Oko, I think you should take it more easy, seriously there is nothing wrong with them doing this. If there are having fun doing, that is all that matters.

Sure there is nothing wrong with it, apart the fact if Gods own distro (aka Debian) is involved ;-) Because they spread such FUD for example: http://wiki.debian.org/WhyDebian (aka Linux Vs BSD) etc. Furthermore they are patching software (like OpenSSH) and later, if some bug occures, they make the original developers responsible for their "fork". "Code audits are in a more advanced stage for OpenBSD; though one must bear in mind that despite all the audits there have been high profile bugs in OpenSSH recently -- so take the audited label with a pinch of salt."
 
Top