Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bsdutils: Alternative to GNU coreutils using software from FreeBSD

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Bsdutils: Alternative to GNU coreutils using software from FreeBSD

#81

Post by throw0101c »

dingi wrote: post #25
jayp1418 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But BSD devs have their own argument https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/

Yeah. Just look what they got from that. Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years.

> Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc).

Meanwhile regular commits from / sponsored by Netflix, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, Mellanox, Intel, Amazon and Microsoft (for network drivers), etc.

Re: Bsdutils: Alternative to GNU coreutils using software from FreeBSD

#83

Post by jasomill »

maxloh wrote: post #58
a2800276 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? If Apple chose to distribute GNU cat, they'd need to release any modifications to cat under the GPL but the license's vitality would not "infect" the rest of OSX. Plenty of GPL software is available on osx.

No. Apple don’t ship anything that is licensed under GPL v3 [0]. In fact, they are still shipping bash 3 (the last version under GPL v2) with Mac OS [1], released 16 years ago. The decision is also affected by the Tivoization clause introduced to GPL v3. > If MacOS included GPLv3 software, Apple wouldn't be able to pre-install it unless they provided all users with signing keys to install their own modified versions…

Apple doesn't ship bash with iOS, and you don't need signing keys to install modified versions of bash on macOS.

But Apple holds lots of patents[1], and while it's hard for me to imagine Apple enforcing patents against users of bash, I can easily imagine Apple lawyers making a strong enough case to management that the potential value of all patent licenses that would be implicitly granted by GPL 3 was likely to exceed the cost of feature-freezing or replacing affected macOS components that they would have agreed to a blanket ban.

Note that I'm not defending this decision: for the record, I detest software patents, dislike tivoization, and the only problem I have with GPL 3 is when companies that might otherwise contribute to GPL 3 projects are uncomfortable with it. Which is unfortunate, but certainly not a flaw in the license itself.

[1] https://patents.google.com/?assignee=%22Apple+Inc%22&oq=assi...

Re: Bsdutils: Alternative to GNU coreutils using software from FreeBSD

#84

Post by aragilar »

jen20 wrote: post #49
bheadmaster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've used MS PowerShell and WSL a bit, and their implementations of common CLI software is sometimes incompatible Are you implying that Microsoft would use the common CLI software interfaces if GNU coreutils weren't GPL? Because I deeply believe they wouldn't. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

They already ship curl. In doubt the license is the thing stopping it, but there is some precedent here. WSL (v2) is just a fancy wrapper around a Linux VM though, so the tools you get there are from the distro, not Windows.

No, they don't ship curl, see https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/08/19/removing-the-powershe... and https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/pull/1901.

Re: Bsdutils: Alternative to GNU coreutils using software from FreeBSD

#85

Post by 0dayz »

EarlKing wrote: post #80
0dayz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a project can't survive without the code. And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something.

> leeching How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "leeching" if I don't care about their contributions either. The only other scenario that would apply is if I wanted to be paid for my work... in which case neither a BSD-like license, nor the GPL, would be adequate. This is the problem I have with GPL partisans:…

Using a pet project nobody is expected to use as an example is a nil point, I could release a pet project in "WTFPL" or "Fuck You Nobody Is Allowed To Use" license and it wouldn't make a difference , if the concerns are that low for said project.

Monetization in FOSS is a systemic issue, with few exceptions, but even then you are far more likely that companies won't want to risk leeching with a GPL like license than a permissive one because of the code sharing requirement, which MIT/BSD at best only incentives as goodwill because of complexity maintaining the project they rely on.

I also find it funny you create a strawman, i never stated any adoration of GPL.

Post reply on HN