What is the FreeBSD Foundation's philosophy on closed-source software?

[Lifeonfull]

It seems like FreeBSD is more accepting and less militant dealing with closed-source software than, say, gNewSense. In some cases, closed-source software is recommended when there is not much of an other option (such as Adobe Flash Player). Can anyone offer any more insight on this matter?

 

[wblock@]

The Foundation is a FreeBSD supporter, not FreeBSD itself. As far as FreeBSD, yes, there is an attitude of pragmatism. While most of us prefer open source software, sometimes it is not available.

 

[Oko]

It seems like FreeBSD is more accepting and less militant dealing with closed-source software than, say, gNewSense. In some cases, closed-source software is recommended when there is not much of an other option (such as Adobe Flash Player). Can anyone offer any more insight on this matter?

You can check on misc@openbsd
http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-attack-straw-men-td55042.html how RMS ventured when he dared to spit that FUD of his to an intelligent group of people. Last time I checked gNewSense uses the same kernel as any other Linux distro. Linux is for all practical purposes commercial semi-open source operating system. BSDs are non-commercial open-source product. OS X is not BSD as it doesn't have even similar kernel (it uses Mach micro kernel not BSD monolitic kernel) and userland is now largely GNU. Vendor support for BSDs is practically non-existing. Linux in my area of work (machine learning, big data, super supercomputing) has much better vendor support than Windows for example. Now you want RMS to give us a lecture because some kid dared to run LINUX version of Adobe Falsh via buggy emulation layer which not even usable.

 

[Lifeonfull]

You can check on misc@openbsd
http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-attack-straw-men-td55042.html how RMS ventured when he dared to spit that FUD of his to an intelligent group of people. Last time I checked gNewSense uses the same kernel as any other Linux distro. Linux is for all practical purposes commercial semi-open source operating system. BSDs are non-commercial open-source product. OS X is not BSD as it doesn't have even similar kernel (it uses Mach micro kernel not BSD monolitic kernel) and userland is now largely GNU. Vendor support for BSDs is practically non-existing. Linux in my area of work (machine learning, big data, super supercomputing) has much better vendor support than Windows for example. Now you want RMS to give us a lecture because some kid dared to run LINUX version of Adobe Falsh via buggy emulation layer which not even usable.

I think you misunderstand. I appreciate FreeBSD's philosophy much more than the GNU philosophy.

 

[Oko]

I think you misunderstand. I appreciate FreeBSD's philosophy much more than the GNU philosophy.

I think I speak for most people in BSD world when I say that we have nothing against GNU, GPL, or a Free Software Foundation. However some of us are very sensitive to mono culture and lack of historical memory or state of amnesia by some people who prescribe to that philosophy. Open source movement is older than RMS and actually can be traced back to the original members of AT&T labs. I (and I believe most of people in BSD camp) don't want to be told how we are supposed to live our lives. If you like GPL, Linux, systemd good for you but some of us have certain reservations and there is nothing RMS can do to convince some of us that we should do the same.

 

[Lifeonfull]

I think I speak for most people in BSD world when I say that we have nothing against GNU, GPL, or a Free Software Foundation. However some of us are very sensitive to mono culture and lack of historical memory or state of amnesia by some people who prescribe to that philosophy. Open source movement is older than RMS and actually can be traced back to the original members of AT&T labs. I (and I believe most of people in BSD camp) don't want to be told how we are supposed to live our lives. If you like GPL, Linux, systemd good for you but some of us have certain reservation and there is nothing RMS can do to convince some of us that we should do the same.

I agree. After I got to really understand the FSF's ideals and goals, I liked it less and less. It seems like Stallman had the right intentions at first, but he just took it too far. He wants this 'freedom' so bad that he removes freedom in turn!

As FreeBSD Forum user Oliverh described it, "BSDL is freedom without any borders, GPL is freedom in a golden cage."

 

[kpa]

I agree. After I got to really understand the FSF's ideals and goals, I liked it less and less. It seems like Stallman had the right intentions at first, but he just took it too far. He wants this 'freedom' so bad that he removes freedom in turn!

As FreeBSD Forum user Oliverh described it, "BSDL is freedom without any borders, GPL is freedom in a golden cage."

GPL is fine and very much recommended for end user application software where it's easy to argue that the application does have some value as a product and it's worth protecting from someone trying to "steal" it and make their own closed source alternative. BSD license works much better for "building block" type of software that is not very useful on its own, take the BSD networking stack for example that was the basis for Microsoft's own TCP/IP stack for MS Windows.