Solved PKGs

Probably not ...
$ pkg search -c nvidia.*binary
nvidia-driver-304-304.137_9 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
nvidia-driver-340-340.108_3 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
nvidia-driver-390-390.154 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
nvidia-driver-515.86.01_1 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
nvidia-driver-470-470.161.03 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
nvidia-secondary-driver-390-390.154 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering on secondary device
nvidia-secondary-driver-515.86.01_1 NVidia graphics card binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering on secondary device
 
Then only the kernel and the base is under the BSD license

the pkg install products
fish and bird ?
 
Hell what?

First of all, there are LOTS of licenses. Only few of them have anything to say about "open source", this is largely an independent thing. MOST ports will build open source software, but not all of them. But of course, only a fraction of them will have a BSD license. The upstream authors decide their license. Other popular choices are GPL, MIT, APACHE, ....

BTW, every port/package will exactly specify the license used.
 
and if man a package
rebuild and modify

example:
the nano editor rewrite

and then wants to sell his system


is the lawyer at the door?

Multi license problems ?
 
MrX86 said:
and if man a package
rebuild and modify

example:
the nano editor rewrite
Click to expand...
This is nothing you should ever ask a distributor (like here FreeBSD), but always the upstream authors. They decide about the license.

Still, FreeBSD ports have a nice licenses framework giving you lots of informations already, licenses are classified by several "permissions", two of them are "dist-sell" and "pkg-sell".

kpedersen said:
Base has some non-BSD licensed stuff in too. CDDL and GPL to name a couple.
Click to expand...
To be fair, regarding GPL those are very few remains as of now...
 
There maybe is a simple misunderstanding.

If you read the FreeBSD license,
you'll see it's more like MIT license,
but definitive no GNU license.
 
can't answer simply, since the kernel consists of many files.
part of the license is to have a copy-left in the source files,
so you'll find the according license in the source files you're intested in.
 
kpedersen said:
Some of the provided kernel modules aren't. opensolaris.ko (for ZFS) contains some CDDL code.
Click to expand...
Since the switch to OpenZFS, opensolaris isn't needed for it any more.

kpedersen said:
I think there are some LinuxKPI related modules that have some non-BSD licensed code. In particular the iwlwifi.
Click to expand...
All the LinuxKPI stuff in the kernel is BSD-licensed. There were GPLv2 licensed parts delivered with the drm-kmod packages, if I'm not mistaken they aren't needed any more.

But can't say anything about specific drivers. At least, you won't find GPL in in-tree drivers. This would be a no-go.
 
a distributor (like here FreeBSD)

delivers a system

markets it as a bsd license globally

and if questions come up, refer to the upstream author.


Interesting
 
MrX86 said:
a distributor (like here FreeBSD)

delivers a system

markets it as a bsd license globally

and if questions come up, refer to the upstream author.


Interesting
Click to expand...

1681671036617.png


Actually, FreeBSD base is an operating system. It's not free from other licenses, but MOST parts are BSD-licensed and GPL is almost entirely eliminated, making FreeBSD a safe choice for anyone building possibly commercial products using it.

FreeBSD ports, on the other hand, are a software distribution for this operating system. You don't really expect the FreeBSD project to write all sorts of application software themselves (or, maybe you do, but then, lol ....)
 
zirias@ said:
Interesting indeed, I don't get the point here ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems a little bizarre.

What might have happened is that Intel released it originally GPL but then i.e Google requested (possibly financially) to have it more permissive and business friendly for i.e ChromiumOS/Chromebooks?

zirias@ said:
You don't really expect the FreeBSD project to write all sorts of application software themselves
Click to expand...

Just to add to this for the OP, FreeBSD is taking a fair approach to keeping up with the pace of hardware / technology by providing compatibility / abstraction layers (Like LinuxKPI and in the past opensolaris, ProjectEvil (ndiswrapper)) so it can benefit from the work done on other operating systems. Naturally this means that for a typical workstation, you may well end up running non-BSD licensed code.
 
"Actually, FreeBSD base is an operating system. It's not free from other licenses"


I don't know what that has to do with trolling or stupidity

good to know what they said

Thanks
 
MrX86 said:
I don't know what that has to do with trolling or stupidity
Click to expand...
Well, quoting the wrong part (which is the one about ports, these are the software distribution) is again such a case. Are you serious? My doubts are growing.

And of course base includes some 3rd-party software as well, so it can't be stricly only BSD-licensed, but keeping troublesome licenses (especially GPL of course) out is enforced and there were painful cleanup activities regarding this. It's also the reason git can never be part of base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top