Hi Fabio, Hi Quiliro
I am in way over my head as I don't know much about this but I just
wanted to mention that I tried ghost BSD and although there were issues
with it(package manager crashing) it was very much like a gnome desktop
on GNU/Linux. For instance the installation gives the option to default
to a bash shell.
There is also a debian version that has a BSD kernel. If the BSD version
followed all the design decisions from the Trisquel GNU distro then
would that not lessen the development pain?
Thanks for feeding back
On 12-02-16 05:11 PM, Fabio Burlá wrote:
I agree. Making a BSD fork would require a lot of effort, because it
would have to be developed separately from BSD, or it would be just a
matter of relicensing each version they make, what would be
essentially the same as helping BSD development.
Also, BSD universe is not as ready for desktops as GNU/Linux is,
despite the fact that a lot of things are ported from GNU/Linux
environments. As a kernel, it might be better than Linux in most
aspects, but it lacks the tools and everything derived from the GNU
world, which means things must be ported. I hear some work has been
done in that aspect, but the problems we already have like the lack of
free drivers will be much worse in a system that is less popular than
GNU/Linux.
Personally, I believe that if Linux ever gets dropped by a FLOSS
distro, it will support not only a GPLed kernel, but a kernel from
GNU, like Hurd. But most people don't believe it will ever become a
good kernel and I don't see any other alternative in the horizon.
I am pretty disturbed by the fact that Linux kernel development does
not embrace true freedom and that some fighters out there have to
clean it from proprietary code. If Linux complied with "FLOSS
standards" by being libre in its nature, it would leave the distros to
make the choice of including or not the proprietary blobs. I might be
ignorant for not knowing a plausible explanation for this, but I
believe it wouldn't be hard to release the blobs separately from the
kernel, so that things like Linux-libre didn't need to exist. That
leaves me with the impression that Linus don't care about freedom and
believes that open source is enough.
It's an horrible fact that we don't have a kernel that truly represent
our cause.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Quiliro Ordóñez
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
El 16/02/12 16:03, Patrick escribió:
[...]
BSD is very permissive, can the same code be re-licensed as
GPL? I can't see why not if you can just take the code and
hide it in commercial products.
I don't know very much about this but I have read that the BSD
kernel is cleaner then Linux and the ports system seems nice.
The code from BSD (if it uses the modified BSD license also called
the 3 clause BSD license) could be relicensed GPL v3 if wanted.
If it could be GPL'd what about Trisquel BSD? !
I don't think that Trisquel would be interested in such thing
because it would be a totally different project. Nevertheless, it
would be another free distro project that would cause two things:
divide the effort and diversify options for freedom fighters. One
is good the other is bad. You can always do what you consider
best. I will cheer you and help if I can.
Greetings,
Quiliro
