Xorg metaport extremely bloated with linux crap

rbranco said:
I also don't like that GPLv2 isn't compatible with any Apache License but only GPLv3 is compatible with Apache-2.0.
Click to expand...
That's why it matters to me. If a supposedly open source license restricts itself from using reasonable other open source licensing, even by dynamic linking, by nothing other than being viral to extend its terms into it, it should lose the definition of being called open source.
rbranco said:
Glibc is used on many other operating systems and not just GNU/Linux.
Click to expand...
That's because it's under LGPL, which is more permissive for use by other software. If it were like the rest of GPL, it wouldn't be.

What's odd is, Apache 2.0 can use LGPL2 through dynamic linking, while LGPL2 can't use Apache 2.0.
 
vmisev said:
Many? Like GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kOpenSolaris, GNU/NetBSD, and as edited and heavily patched libroot.so in BeOS and Haiku, then yes - many 🤭
Click to expand...
eternal_noob said:
Oh, it is. The concept of infection is in the license terms of the GPL. It requires any code derived or linked against GPL software to also be GPL.
Click to expand...
Are you redistributing the software? Otherwise the whole point is moot.

I find this license wahhabism to be silly, both in the GPL and the BSD camps.
 
rbranco said:
Are you redistributing the software? Otherwise the whole point is moot.

I find this license wahhabism to be silly, both in the GPL and the BSD camps.
Click to expand...
Free usage should ideally not require you to release your entire program under a compatible license because you use Readline. As Theo says, "in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it".
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
Free usage should ideally not require you to release your entire program under a compatible license because you use Readline. As Theo says, "in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it".
Click to expand...
Because of this mentality they refuse to incorporate OpenZFS into OpenBSD.

Every single argument you may have against the GPL is applicable to the CDDL. Do you use ZFS?
 
rbranco said:
Because of this mentality they refuse to incorporate OpenZFS into OpenBSD.

Every single argument you may have against the GPL is applicable to the CDDL. Do you use ZFS?
Click to expand...
I am ok with weak copyleft in certain circumstances. I do not prefer it, but it is better than something that is viral over dynamic linking. The CDDL's copyleft has boundaries, while the GPL will take over anything without an exception. And yes, I do use ZFS. If there was a BSD-licensed ZFS, I would prefer that, but there isn't. I am OK with using GPLed software when necessary, but if it can be done without GPLed software, there is no reason to contaminate my system, especially if I will be distributing the system to someone who will use it for a purpose unknown to me. Just think about this: The owners of GPLed code can sue you for liknking to their stupid library. They are still suing even though no-one was harmed. Sure you can due that with the CDDL, but it is so much less harsh that it is an actual "give your contributions back" license, while the GPL is a lawsuit trap. While the GPL was not designed for proprietary dual-licensing, it came to occupy that niche, because being a trap is what is best at.
 
Kind of reminds me of bitcoin. The designer thinks he is making one thing. But nature has its own thing in mind.

The more I think about this, though, if you stop thinking about GPL as a a restrictive open source licence, and think about it as a permissive closed source licence, I can't hate it. Companies making money.

As long as you make that distinction though. Because otherwise, probably a trap is what it is.
 
Espionage724 said:
Anyone know how Wayland, Windows, or macOS work in that regard? It doesn't exactly sound efficient to endlessly loop on CPU(?) waiting for a device until it does something. What's the server main thread run at and its limit?
Click to expand...

ospoll, ospoll_wait underneath use something like select() to poll and block until an event is ready. A fairly common design, you can see this in action in this libdrm example which underpins both Xorg and Wayland compositors which support vsync.

Basically, a loop doesn't mean the CPU can't rest during each iteration.
 
Of course, my heart rebels at the thought of governments arbitrating our actions. But that's a different, philosophical discussion. If you're gonna have it, GPL is not the worst thing I ever heard of.
 
rbranco said:
Because of this mentality they refuse to incorporate OpenZFS into OpenBSD.
Click to expand...
OpenBSD chooses to not incorporate OpenZFS due to their ideology. License wise, you're allowed to use it side by side with OpenBSD's code. OpenZFS is restricted from use alongside GPL.
rbranco said:
Every single argument you may have against the GPL is applicable to the CDDL. Do you use ZFS?
Click to expand...
Not so. CDDL allows use with other non-viral copyleft, and with permissive licenses with varying patent clauses. CDDL can be used alongside MPL 2.0, MPL1.1, Apache 2.0, Ms-PL, OSL, EPL, EUPL. These can be used together in any order. Not so with the GPL, it restricts use with them, with the exception of Apache 2.0, which is only restricted from with GPL2 and LGPL2. Only GPL created these restrictions, the other licenses aren't forcing these viral restrictions. GPL2 can't even use LGPL3. What does that say?

Nonviral copyleft licenses are the right balance between BSD and GPL licenses. Perhaps, BSD licenses are best for libraries, for maximum compatibility. Though, I don't like the idea of a BSD license getting absorbed by a restrictive license, then closed off for use by programs which used it, which then causes two versions of the program to be needed.

RetroComputingCollector said:
If there was a BSD-licensed ZFS, I would prefer that
Click to expand...
It's called Hammer2FS made by DragonFlyBSD. Nothing wrong with ZFS. We were led to believe CDDL was wrong by Stallman. I wonder how much that harmed Sun Microsystems' business model, but there were poor business strategies by Sun Microsystems. CDDL conflicted with viral GPL licenses. A few good licenses are based off of CDDL. It took an ecosystem of it to see the value in it, and it gave examples of limiting viralness.


I would put GPL2 and GPL3 behind an emulator as an interface level only for them. So, if it's allowed, libraries below that emulator interface can remain unchanged and work together.
 
sidetone said:
OpenBSD chooses to not incorporate OpenZFS due to their ideology. License wise, you're allowed to use it side by side with OpenBSD's code. OpenZFS is restricted from use alongside GPL.

Not so. CDDL allows use with other non-viral copyleft, and with permissive licenses with varying patent clauses. CDDL can be used alongside MPL 2.0, MPL1.1, Apache 2.0, Ms-PL, OSL, EPL, EUPL. These can be used together in any order. Not so with the GPL, it restricts use with them, with the exception of Apache 2.0, which is only restricted from with GPL2 and LGPL2. Only GPL created these restrictions, the other licenses aren't forcing these viral restrictions. GPL2 can't even use LGPL3. What does that say?

Nonviral copyleft licenses are the right balance between BSD and GPL licenses. Perhaps, BSD licenses are best for libraries, for maximum compatibility. Though, I don't like the idea of a BSD license getting absorbed by a restrictive license, then closed off for use by programs which used it, which then causes two versions of the program to be needed.


It's called Hammer2FS made by DragonFlyBSD. Nothing wrong with ZFS. We were led to believe CDDL was wrong by Stallman. I wonder how much that harmed Sun Microsystems' business model, but there were poor business strategies by Sun Microsystems. CDDL conflicted with viral GPL licenses. A few good licenses are based off of CDDL. It took an ecosystem of it to see the value in it, and it gave examples of limiting viralness.


I would put GPL2 and GPL3 behind an emulator as an interface level only for them. So, if it's allowed, libraries below that emulator interface can remain unchanged and work together.
Click to expand...
The virality of the GPL is only an issue for software developers and redistributors. Licenses are a complete non-issue for users. I care only about the code.

And GPLv2 can be used with GPLv3. The CDDL is only used by a handful of projects. Take a look at any repo by Oxide Computer (founded by ex-Sun creator of DTrace). They're all MPL 2.0.
 
rbranco said:
This is a file from 2012.

This pointless hatred of everything GNU is silly. GCC continues to be faster and less buggy than Clang.
Click to expand...
Says who? I have heard that Clang is actually faster by other people. Both can't be true. I honestly think they are equal. I get why people like GCC C extensions, but you shouldn't use them because you shouldn't be writing non ANSI/ISO C anyways.
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
Says who? I have heard that Clang is actually faster by other people. Both can't be true. I honestly think they are equal. I get why people like GCC C extensions, but you shouldn't use them because you shouldn't be writing non ANSI/ISO C anyways.
Click to expand...
GCC is faster. Have you ever compiled the kernel & world?
 
rbranco said:
GCC is faster. Have you ever compiled the kernel & world?
Click to expand...
I don't use GCC to compile Base, however I do use it to compile third party programs if I need them. I am just saying some anecdotal evidence I heard from others. I will need to test it later. I am not saying there is anything wrong with GCC as a compiler, just with the license.
 
For rank-and-file private users like us, licenses are pretty much pointless. Sure, there's a bit of an honor system, there's a bit of a provenance, there's a bit of loyalty/pettiness/other human emotion, but just how much bite do the licenses even have? I just want my copy of the software to work on my metal, dammit, I don't care about anything else.

In commercial settings, it's a different ballgame, though.
 
I have serious problems with GNU and the GNU philosophy, and by extension the whole GPL mentality (the design mentality, I actually find the corporate hijack much more palatable). But I think it's painfully clear that without GNU, open source userland would be epochs behind, nowhere near what it is. It probably would be an expert supercomputer niche, though maybe that's an exageration.

I don't think BSD people hate GNU, I just think they find it annoying. Like an old car that never works right and you can't quite get rid of.

A world in which the GPL available software exists with GPL is better than a world in which it is simply secret proprietary software.

Disgusted tolerance, is what I'm preaching here.
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
What's wrong with Happy Pride Month? This guy who made these videos is just a right-wing pundit in the tech world. Why do we need politics in our space whatsoever? Everyone should just put aside their political differences and biases and just enjoy an open-source world free of left-right politics. Who gives a fuck about anything? Let's not make big issues over small things such as who someone likes, or if you belive in social security. A community divided cannot stand. If people split the OSS community, MICROSOFT WINS.
Click to expand...
Dissin' on Microsoft is so 2000. Microsoft by Satya Nadella isn't hostile to OSS. These days, Google and Apple are just as bad (if not worse) than Microsoft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top