Re: Is this bunk.
Garry wrote: Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. The Darwin core is a hybrid of Mach/BSD (xnu). The Darwin core is open source, and you can download the open source tools they use (and in cases such as CUPS, own and develop) from http://www.apple.com/opensource/ or http://www.opensource.apple.com/. To say they have given nothing back is untrue, they make their changes available which is not required, but that doesn't mean they're actually being used by the community. Their graphical system on top of Darwin is proprietary, but it is possible to build Darwin using the source code provided by Apple. There is only vendor lock in if you choose to use applications which only work in their graphical environment, but for most things that would cause vendor lock-in, they are either open source or available on multiple platforms. It's interesting you mention how Apple doesn't give back, as it has also been the case with Linux and related projects borrowing code from BSD and then not giving back by proving changes under an incompatible license. This has been discussed at length on the lists of some BSD project with an outspoken leader... Also, Linux and GPL software is not immune from the Apple treatment. Android uses the Dalvik VM for all of the software, and Dalvik is under the Apache license which allows for proprietary uses. You should notice this is definitely used to the fullest by cell phone vendors as they release source code for the kernel only. How is it Apple releases more code than is available for your typical Android device? This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. The productive hope is that good code will be used, and people will not write bad code instead due to overly restrictive licenses preventing them from using said good code. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:12:59AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote: Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. If the kernel is the basis of an OS, then OS X is basically the Mach kernel. Kirk McKusick of FFS fame has been quoted as saying to the effect, The difference between Linux and BSD is that all BSDs have the same userland but different kernels. All Linuxes have the same kernel but differing userlands. The userland part of early versions of OS X borrowed heavily from NetBSD, but much of this has been replaced with FreeBSD in later version. Or so I'm told. What I've seen of it its been primarily FreeBSD from the start. There are also a number of FreeBSD device drivers in MacOS X, not the least of which is fxp. The irony of that is Apple has never shipped an Intel based NIC. Or at least not for years after fxp was included. The fxp man page existed in earlier MacOS X but not in 10.6.4. NICs supported by fxp were favorites of Jordan Hubbard and other FreeBSD'ers now working for Apple. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:10:19PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: At 1:25 AM +0100 8/23/10, Garry wrote: Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. This is true. (or at least it definitely used to be true, I have no idea if Vista and Windows7 are still using the BSD networking stack). It's true either way, because Garry said (or used to use). It is true that MS Windows used to use a BSD licensed network stack. My understanding is that this got replaced in Vista, however, in case you're curious. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpn8eD9CAO2f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:00:36AM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote: As for the GPL itself, I think the biggest problem is who controls it and who enforces it. Companies get sued over busybox frequently, and not by the busybox developers. Stallman's views about how computers should work amounts to near anarchy http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html. I do not think anarchy is the correct term so much as chaos. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpMz1q0f0Sq5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
Quoth Chad Perrin on Monday, 23 August 2010: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:00:36AM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote: As for the GPL itself, I think the biggest problem is who controls it and who enforces it. Companies get sued over busybox frequently, and not by the busybox developers. Stallman's views about how computers should work amounts to near anarchy http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html. I do not think anarchy is the correct term so much as chaos. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] From the chaos created by a faux egalitarianism a Stal(in|lmann) always rises. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpwvaLkemAww.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X#History and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU It's a Mach-based kernel, with parts of FreeBSD's and NetBSD's userland. they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Apple is a big user of and contributor to the LLVM project [http://llvm.org/] to create a modular and reusable compiler and toolchain with a BSD-like license. See e.g. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/20/apples_other_open_secret_the_llvm_complier.html Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. No. See http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/6/19/05641/7357 Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. FreeBSD still exists. And so do NetBSD and OpenBSD. If someone wants to use BSD-licensed code, great. But if that company then decides not to contribute back they are not so smart. If they change the code but to not contribute back changes, the original developers don't know about it, nor can they merge it with their own developments. So over time the code-bases will diverge, and the company in question has to do more and more maintenance on that code. The crux of the matter is that if you don't contribute back you'll lose the advantage of open-source development and its community. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpphb3CGY0w0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
Apple is also giving back extensively in the X11 arena with pretty much everything they're doing in X11 being made available with current development and testing done by Apple employees withing the open source tree. X11 snapshots are openly available with extensive feedback through the x11-us...@apple.com list. Bill -- INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820 Fax:(206) 232-9186 Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792 Many citizens because of their respect for what only appears to be a law are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance. -- U.S. v. Minker ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: Is this bunk.
Thank you all for your replies. The information I posted to you all was NOT my opinion or statement. I use and like FreeBSD more than windows having been introduced to it by a friend some years ago. I was and am most certainly NOT trolling, I merely did not know how much truth was in the statement that it was anything to do with Apple. In fact the message I sent was quoted from the original sender to me an Mr Oliver Stiebel when I asked him what BSD had to do with Apple. When he originally sent me this message I wouldn't recommend Apple to anyone. in response to my message. Linux Oliver !, lets at least go for one of the BSD flavours. Personally I prefer FreeBSD. Thank you for your help. I am willing to send a single person on this list a copy of the original email as I received as proof of this conversation, I have no wish to be considered a troll on this group. As I said I had no knowledge of Apple having anything to do with BSD and so asked for clarifications sake for myself. Garry -Original Message- From: David Kelly [mailto:dke...@hiwaay.net] Sent: 23 August 2010 04:18 To: Garry Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this bunk. On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Apple hired a lot of key people from the FreeBSD project. I don't know just what comes back to FreeBSD out of Apple but suspect the reason you and myself don't know is that Apple doesn't care to toot their own horn. Apple made a significant contribution a while back testing and improving NFS. As for how much of MacOS X is BSD, pretty much all of the command line stuff. Apple has gone to great lengths to XML-ize most everything so while MacOS is BSD, its probably the most distant BSD cousin. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. NT 3.51 used to flash a Berkeley Software Distribution copyright message on the text console during boot because some code was used. Doubt MS could leave well enough alone to simply lift the entire stack. The VMS-inspired NT kernel was probably not organized in such a way as to optimally use an unmodified BSD network protocol stack. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. So why are you here? Trolling? It bugs the heck out of some people when others manage to build on their work to make something better, and then not give it away to everyone else. Others realize that if what we do is truly useful then others will want to use it to build bigger and better things. That it doesn't matter if we sell our work or give it away, what others do with it is no skin off our noses. Our original work is still exactly as accessible as it was before others made something more of their own version of it. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. Thats one of the big problems of the GPL-mindset. Seems they spend a whole lot more time cloning the work of others than in actually creating anything new. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. There is nothing in the BSD license permitting a hostile takeover. Some would claim FreeBSD has executed a hostile takeover of what it is to be BSD. The pre-FreeBSD code is out there, you are welcome to it. Some would say OpenBSD attempted a hostile takeover of BSD. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Is this bunk.
This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
OS X is based on Darwin which was, as I understand it, inspired by BSD but not specifically FreeBSD; most like was Net or OpenBSD. But, you can say the same about Windows, Mac OS and X11 because they were all inspired by Xerox PARC... Or a brand of tires because they look a lot like another brand, on the inside of the tire. On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
It's a lot like complaining that your bull is counterproductive because it isn't a cow and therefore won't yield milk. If one's definition of productive is expands the amount of software in the universe that is non-proprietary, then perhaps the BSD license is non-productive -- but that was never its goal. The license serves to improve the amount of reusable software in the universe -- and in doing so, the quality of that code -- and in the process, the idea that entities could leverage it to build proprietary extensions is in the mix. Many companies have built products with proprietary components using BSD-licensed baselines. Rather than start from scratch, they ended up with products that were less expensive and higher-quality. For many of these companies, religious compliance to software liberation is not a pill they would consider swallowing. On 8/22/10 5:25 PM, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Apple hired a lot of key people from the FreeBSD project. I don't know just what comes back to FreeBSD out of Apple but suspect the reason you and myself don't know is that Apple doesn't care to toot their own horn. Apple made a significant contribution a while back testing and improving NFS. As for how much of MacOS X is BSD, pretty much all of the command line stuff. Apple has gone to great lengths to XML-ize most everything so while MacOS is BSD, its probably the most distant BSD cousin. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. NT 3.51 used to flash a Berkeley Software Distribution copyright message on the text console during boot because some code was used. Doubt MS could leave well enough alone to simply lift the entire stack. The VMS-inspired NT kernel was probably not organized in such a way as to optimally use an unmodified BSD network protocol stack. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. So why are you here? Trolling? It bugs the heck out of some people when others manage to build on their work to make something better, and then not give it away to everyone else. Others realize that if what we do is truly useful then others will want to use it to build bigger and better things. That it doesn't matter if we sell our work or give it away, what others do with it is no skin off our noses. Our original work is still exactly as accessible as it was before others made something more of their own version of it. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. Thats one of the big problems of the GPL-mindset. Seems they spend a whole lot more time cloning the work of others than in actually creating anything new. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. There is nothing in the BSD license permitting a hostile takeover. Some would claim FreeBSD has executed a hostile takeover of what it is to be BSD. The pre-FreeBSD code is out there, you are welcome to it. Some would say OpenBSD attempted a hostile takeover of BSD. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. My understanding is that it's a Mach kernel with some FreeBSD userland that has since been worked over with a rake, producing the Darwin OS. Following that, Apple dropped a load of proprietary stuff on top of Darwin to produce MacOS X. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. This is true. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Good for you. Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. Why not? Tell me what benefit is gained by not using FreeBSD, or what benefit is lost by discouraging others from using your technology. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. WebKit is actually not GPLed. It's a combination (at least primarily) of the LGPL and the BSD License. I guess you should stop using any WebKit based browser if you don't like the BSD License. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. In what way is it counterproductive? What goal do you want to serve that the BSD License hinders? Perhaps you should consider some alternative views of the matter. For instance, there's . . . * Copyfree (an alternative to Copyright and Copyleft): http://copyfree.org * Software Liberation Front (counter-copyleft advocacy): http://softwareliberationfront.org * Choose the Right Licensing Model for Security Software: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=610 * Copyfree vs. Copyleft: http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Copyfree_vs_Copyleft * BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622 I have found that it's really the GPL, and copyleft licensing in general, that is counterproductive. It has been used to launch attacks on small open source projects, employ anticompetitive and monopolistic business tactics, and keep open source code from being used in other open source projects. In fact, copyleft licenses tend to be mutually incompatible. They prohibit proprietary software projects from using their code, and they also prohibit copyfree software projects (such as the FreeBSD project) from using their code (at least directly) -- but they also prohibit copyleft projects that use a different copyleft license from using their code. I find the hypocrisy rather odious. I suppose your tastes may differ. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWIl8Gdg3xc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
At 1:25 AM +0100 8/23/10, Garry wrote: Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Mac OS is the Mach kernel, plus a userland and unix libraries which are very much BSD-ish. They pulled in from all three major BSD projects (NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD). On top of that they have their GUI layer, which is Quartz instead of X11, and the development environment which is based on InterfaceBuilder (from NeXTSTEP days) and Objective-C. The Objective-C api's are called Cocoa. Which is to say, if you're counting lines-of-code than most of MacOS is *not* from any BSD. The parts which did come from the BSD's are available as source from Apple (in the project called Darwin). If we don't get much out of Apple, it's because we aren't looking through their source code, and that would not be the fault of Apple. They make sure we can't get much out of their work at the Mach kernel, Quartz, and Cocoa layers, but then they can't get anything out of us for those layers either. So, I don't see what the complaint is. They've also contributed to a number of other open-source projects, projects which have been BSD or GNU licensed. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. This is true. (or at least it definitely used to be true, I have no idea if Vista and Windows7 are still using the BSD networking stack). So you're saying that you would prefer that Microsoft wrote their own networking stack, which everyone else in the world would be *required* to deal with, instead of using a network stack which was already known and tested? Having seen how BSD license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. That is your choice, of course. And, well, I don't care. All I care is how I feel based on my work in the BSD's. I'm happy with how my work has been used. I'm happy to keep contributing, either with code or with donations to help others to produce quality BSD-licensed open-source code. BSD-licensing is probably not appropriate for all projects, but it works well for the kinds of projects that I tend to work on. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = dros...@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or g...@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote: Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. If the kernel is the basis of an OS, then OS X is basically the Mach kernel. The userland part of early versions of OS X borrowed heavily from NetBSD, but much of this has been replaced with FreeBSD in later version. Or so I'm told. As someone else has pointed out, Apple has made some important contributions to NFS, so they are not exactly free riders. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. NT had a notoriously unstable network stack. It suddenly became more stable with Win2k, which turned out to be due to the replacement of much of the code with code taken from FreeBSD, which has a famously stable network stack. People who claim to have seen the MS code say that large parts of it are unchanged from the original FBSD code, and include the original comments. As far as I know, that code is still being used. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. And the wonderful thing about the proliferation of open source licenses is that you can pick a project with a license that you approve of and never have to have your code encumbered by a license you feel is inferior. The people who use FBSD and the wonderful people who produce it obviously feel that the FBSD license is the sort of license that they want to support. You are free to pity our delusions and choose a project with a more enlightened approach. Best of luck! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this bunk.
On 8/22/2010 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Oh the corny quote, If you love something set it free, if it comes back to you, it was meant to be. GPL is viral, restrictive, forces the code to come back and you can go to court if it doesn't. Code from OpenBSD is used with the Linux kernel, but because of the GPL even Linux kernel modules must be GPLed so the code cannot go back to OpenBSD. It's a theft in the spirit of open source, since it cannot be given back. There are rumors that the CDDL was written to be BSD style and not GPL compatible. Apache and Sendmail are both BSD licensed, but I don't see them getting stolen. As for the GPL itself, I think the biggest problem is who controls it and who enforces it. Companies get sued over busybox frequently, and not by the busybox developers. Stallman's views about how computers should work amounts to near anarchy http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
