Linux Format forums

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite

jjmac — Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:34 am

Author: jjmac

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:34 am

guy wrote:

>>
Well, I'm not over-fussed if my name doen't appear on the front page. Self-promotion, or "the game that sells" as you put it, is not what BSD is about either.
>>

True, but whether or not, the average person ... like my brother who has no real interest in anything tech, or anything electronic, and certainly not any related social/political implementations ... he's interested in maintaining his well paid social position, with all its' lurks. The only reason he bought a computer(s) was due to badgering from his kids (goaded on by me ).

He believes a company like MS is 'probably' well with in their rights to claim exclusive ownership of technologies. Reason being, after all, they 'invented/created/made' it. The idea that they took public domain concepts and then possessed them is quite shocking to him. He thinks, if that was true hmmmm, then, how can they do that ???, there fore it can't be really true. The BSD licence has the loop hole that allows for that abuse.

My basic point is that a licence like BSDs' works if everyone else works with the same spirit that the licence expresses. But ... people don't, and there is its' problem.

>>
The ethics of giving stuff away and just letting go are higher than the GPL's copyleft restrictions
>>

I can't agree there. The BSD is a bit naive in that respect, it assumes people will do the right thing and work with the spirit of the licence. The GPL isn't paying any homage, it is just facing the sad realities. It accepts that human nature, as it consistently displays itself, simply wont do that. So it sees the need to close that hole. Hard love maybe, a restriction, yes, ... but there isn't any other way to effect that really. And it only becomes as such if the person has a view to manipulating that aspect. To work on the perceptions. Companies have shown that open source is a beneficial business input. It allows hw developers to get products out quicker and with greater diversity. And contra wise, it allows OS developers to provide the necessary support, quicker. It's probably the only thing that has kept the kernel independant of any one particular interest group. And they do all constantly try to leverage things to suite their own interests. Just like my old dog, who used to scoff his food down in an instinctive flash. So that no other critter could get to it first. Thinking he might then starve. A degree of doubt existed there somewhere ...

>>
(Hey, I'm not dissing the GPL - we need both - just defending BSD).
>>

(grin) , i know (grin)

>>
I'm not interested in their criminal record. They're here now, on our team, making us stronger. And that's what matters.
>>

There've been doing really badly with their 'netware' line too, i hear
Time will tell, just like 4 year olds, never turn your back for to long. Lets not ignore the need for monitoring.

An old foot soldiers saying ...

When being charged by overwhelming odds, and your standing firm, as many have split, and others have fell. And they get closer and closer ... when there really close, turn around quickly and run in the same direction, yelling the same yell ...

(grin), Not really an old saying, as i just made that up

jm

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite

jbennet — Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 pm

Author: jbennet

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 pm

yeah i dont like either the gpl or bsd i like the LGPL

RE: Something I never qu

guy — Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:31 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:31 pm

jjmac wrote:

guy wrote:
>>The BSD license is a great license. What sucks is the commercial world it has to survive in.

Why do you think that !
Not allowing people who do use it to claim authorship is really just mandatory, but not requiring code visibility and not overriding additional licences, such as those that are designed to obscue visibility ... lends itself, very easily, to promoting a perception that the code does originate from a subsequent party. An awful lot of people do actually think, that the likes of MS did think of it first. And perception, unfortunately, is the game that sells.

Well, I'm not over-fussed if my name doen't appear on the front page. Self-promotion, or "the game that sells" as you put it, is not what BSD is about either. The ethics of giving stuff away and just letting go are higher than the GPL's copyleft restrictions. By recognising its existence, the GPL pays homage to the world of sucky IP and business laws that it has chosen to do battle with. BSD quietly sets an example to us all. That's cool.

(Hey, I'm not dissing the GPL - we need both - just defending BSD).

Quote:

>>Big business can be part of the open source community if it wants. Who else is going to feed us? ... RedHat anyone....

Not saying they can't. But i think it is understood what i'm getting at there

Maybe, but I think it's equally understood that I disagree. What makes Novell unsavoury just because they bought their way in to the party? They also brought lunch for a lot of free software geeks with them. I'm not interested in their criminal record. They're here now, on our team, making us stronger. And that's what matters.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite

jjmac — Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:19 pm

Author: jjmac

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:19 pm

guy wrote:
>>
The BSD license is a great license. What sucks is the commercial world it has to survive in.
>>

Why do you think that !
Not allowing people who do use it to claim authorship is really just mandatory, but not requiring code visibility and not overriding additional licences, such as those that are designed to obscue visibility ... lends itself, very easily, to promoting a perception that the code does originate from a subsequent party. An awful lot of people do actually think, that the likes of MS did think of it first. And perception, unfortunately, is the game that sells. People don't really dig in to find the headers.

>>
Big business can be part of the open source community if it wants. Who else is going to feed us? ... RedHat anyone....
>>

Not saying they can't. But i think it is understood what i'm getting at there

>>
Who else is going to feed us?
>>

Sounds like the modern world to me ......

jm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite unde

guy — Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:28 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:28 pm

jjmac wrote:

I'm not that great a fan of the bsd licence.

The BSD license is a great license. What sucks is the commercial world it has to survive in.

Quote:

Big business, currently, seems to be going the way of absorbing, or rather, assimilating open source projects rather than trying to compete head on it would seem ... Novel anyone ....

Big business can be part of the open source community if it wants. Who else is going to feed us? ... RedHat anyone....

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understo

jjmac — Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:21 pm

Author: jjmac

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:21 pm

jbennet wrote:
>>
well really, whats to stop them,
.
.
.
You know what i reackon someday ms will make a linux distro and it will be bad so it will kill linux
>>

Oh, i think it probably has crossed their minds

Bill and his bouncing monkey, spend long hours at night, going over the gpl, and pondering while muttering to themselves ... 'damn, damn' ....

And go to sleep, with the rotational thought ... 'must remember to smile and be nice at the Linux expo this week ... damn, damn'

I'm not that great a fan of the bsd licence. I tend to think that not a lot of long term thought was put into it. You can basically do whatever you want except claim authorship. It doesn't require code visibility, and allows other licences to override itself, ... thus its' preference by proprietary companies i guess.

Big business, currently, seems to be going the way of absorbing, or rather, assimilating open source projects rather than trying to compete head on it would seem ... Novel anyone ....

jm

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understo

jbennet — Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:20 am

Author: jbennet

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:20 am

well really, whats to stop them, they can use opernsource bsd code or buy the real thing if they want to. You know what i reackon someday ms will make a linux distro and it will be bad so it will kill linux

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood..

Rhakios — Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:02 pm

Author: Rhakios

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:02 pm

jbennet wrote:

why dont they make a new, unixey windows

Sure, why not, they've copied everything else Apple have ever done.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

jbennet — Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:56 pm

Author: jbennet

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:56 pm

well ms own some system v code dont they?
they had a licence to make Xenix afterall (yes, ms did make a unix once)

why dont they make a new, unixey windows

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

wyliecoyoteuk — Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:30 pm

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:30 pm

But then, MS would say that wouldn't they
Net BSD was mentioned as the kernel basis in the foreword of "Networking NT4" -the book I used as a guide to set my first NT network up with, when we moved on from Novell, DOS and WFW.
Nostalgia- IIRC our first NT server was a pIII 250MHz with a massive 128Mb of ram and mirrored 8Gb disks- Installing SCSI on NT4 was not for the fainthearted.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

towy71 — Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:19 am

Author: towy71

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:19 am

nelz wrote:

Why? Was it too secure?

Who would know

RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

nelz — Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 am

Author: nelz

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 am

Why? Was it too secure?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

towy71 — Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 am

Author: towy71

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 am

M-Saunders wrote:

And even then, according to most sources the network stack has been almost/completely rewritten and doesn't contain any BSD code.

M

Who would know

RE: Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

M-Saunders — Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:57 am

Author: M-Saunders

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:57 am

And even then, according to most sources the network stack has been almost/completely rewritten and doesn't contain any BSD code.

M

Re: RE: Something I never quite understood....

towy71 — Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:09 pm

Author: towy71

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:09 pm

wyliecoyoteuk wrote:

Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but windoze NT has it's roots in BSD.....

only the networking bits IIRC what they "borrowed" all cobbled together with bits of M$Dos code and tied with baler twine and sticky back plastic, and still the continuing basis of XPee