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

OpenBSD 6.4 released

openbsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#161

Post by lmaximus1983 »

mmt wrote: post #159
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code was compiled, so they cannot make modifications. So it is in violation. You would be right if it was PHP / Python or something else that was interpreted. The real point to take away is that any modifications will never reach upstream.

I don't understand what compilation has to do with anything, if the company (user) in question isn't distributing the software outside the company. How is it any different from an individual making changes to GPL software and using it (compiler or interpretted) on a personal computer? Surely that individual isn't obligated to share anything, either. > The real point to take away is that any modifications will never r…

Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party (where it was installed on premises) as a proprietary product.

>The GPL doesn't mention, AFAIK, any such concept. I thought the point was freedom for users of software, not implied benefit to some "upstream" programmer.

The OP specifically said that one of the benefits of the GPL is people had to contribute back because they have to make the code public. As we have discovered they don't.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#162

Post by mmt »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #161
mmt wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what compilation has to do with anything, if the company (user) in question isn't distributing the software outside the company. How is it any different from an individual making changes to GPL software and using it (compiler or interpretted) on a personal computer? Surely that individual isn't obligated to share anything, either. > The real point to take away is that any modifications will never r…

Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party (where it was installed on premises) as a proprietary product. >The GPL doesn't mention, AFAIK, any such concept. I thought the point was freedom for users of software, not implied benefit to some "upstream" programmer. The OP specifically said that one of the benefits of the GPL is people had to…

> Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party

Indeed, that wasn't at all clear. The comment to which I was responding only used the word "company" (singular and plural), without any modifiers, which I read as describing the same party.

That clears up some of my confusion, since that's an obvious violation (assuming source code wasn't available to those same 3rd parties, which you also didn't explicitly state).

> The OP specifically said that one of the benefits of the GPL is people had to contribute back because they have to make the code public.

Such an assertion (which I see in neither ancestor comments nor the article) still seems mistaken, so perhaps it's a strawman?

The GPL, IIUC, is meant to protect the user, aka downstream, not provide benefits to "upstream". If the binary itself isn't made public, then the source code need not be, either (though I suppose the user/customer in your scenario would have the freedom to choose to make it public, they have no obligation and little, if any, incentive).

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#163

Post by lmaximus1983 »

mmt wrote: post #162
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party (where it was installed on premises) as a proprietary product. >The GPL doesn't mention, AFAIK, any such concept. I thought the point was freedom for users of software, not implied benefit to some "upstream" programmer. The OP specifically said that one of the benefits of the GPL is people had to…

> Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party Indeed, that wasn't at all clear. The comment to which I was responding only used the word "company" (singular and plural), without any modifiers, which I read as describing the same party. That clears up some of my confusion, since that's an obvious violation (assuming source code wasn't avail…

From the OP

> Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#164

Post by MaxBarraclough »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #163
mmt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I didn't make it very clear. Each time I observed it the company I was contracting for was selling it to a 3rd party Indeed, that wasn't at all clear. The comment to which I was responding only used the word "company" (singular and plural), without any modifiers, which I read as describing the same party. That clears up some of my confusion, since that's an obvious violation (assuming source code wasn't avail…

From the OP > Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it.

Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source.

'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue.

(The Affero GPL licence is different in that regard, and was developed as a response to the software-as-a-service trend, but we're discussing the plain old GPL.)

Imperfect enforcement is a valid point, but the terms of the GPL are effective at least some of the time. Major technology companies do not want copyright scandals, even if plenty of fly-by-night companies are willing to risk it.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#165

Post by MaxBarraclough »

trasz wrote: post #137
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For almost all of us. Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it. Hence the Linux kernel snowballing and taking over the world, whereas the BSDs have not, despite being at least as strong technically. The better Linux gets, the more people ta…

If that were true, BSD-licensed projects like PostgreSQL, LLVM, Xorg, or Apache would die off long time ago, replaced by their GNU-licensed counterparts. Yet we're witnessing the exact opposite happening. Licenses don't work like you think they do. In fact, they work backwards: the decision whether to release the source or not doesn't depend on the license, it's the license - and thus the choice of existing software…

Using the GPL doesn't guarantee you that your project will take over the world. Using a BSD licence doesn't automatically doom your project. But in the case of the Linux kernel, its use of the GPL appears to be the reason for its success - it's not that it always had compelling technical advantages over BSD.

This is Torvalds' idea, not mine [0] (though he doesn't speak to Linux-vs-BSD directly)

> Sure, Sony doesn't give back - but eg Juniper does.

But in aggregate, Linux has taken over the world, and BSD hasn't. The 'snowball' effect is real.

[0] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-say...

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#166

Post by lmaximus1983 »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #164
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the OP > Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it.

Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source. 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. (The Affer…

To preface the rest of my response. One of my points why the GPL isn't magic is that developers will just "steal" code if is easier and most companies don't bother checking whether the code is violating licenses when supplying to a third party.

> Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source.

The fact it doesn't prevent you from doing that. It only really prevents large companies that people are watching.

Violations happen all the time. They just happen on smaller GPL projects.

> 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue.

The impression I get is that GPL advocates like yourself seem to think that the unwashed developers that work on proprietary code don't understand the GPL and have to be constantly told how a software license works. You aren't an enlightened individual because you understand a software license. I understand the license and the arguments about it just fine.

There is an issue with stuff not going back to upstream. If a defect fix only happens in downstream that is generic enough that it should benefit everyone then only downstream benefits, this things don't get contributed back and there is no improvement of upstream.

> Imperfect enforcement is a valid point, but the terms of the GPL are effective at least some of the time. Major technology companies do not want copyright scandals, even if plenty of fly-by-night companies are willing to risk it.

The flyby night companies as you put it are the majority, not the minority. If it isn't a big project most companies won't get found out.

Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, which was my original disagreement with your comment.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#167

Post by mmt »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #164
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the OP > Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it.

Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source. 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. (The Affer…

> 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue.

As the parent pointed out, purely-internal isn't what he meant. Distribution can be non-public, which is distribution nonetheless. Such distribution would require availability of source, but that availability wouldn't be public, if the original distribution wasn't public.

The parent seems to be focusing on "theft" (GPL violation) by relatively-unknown companies, which didn't necessarily occur. It's plausible that it did, but, even if the violation were corrected, since that correction doesn't require public release of source code, is likely irrelevant to the overall discussion.

You seem to be focusing only on publically-released software, which may or may not be the majority (by whatever measure).

I have no "side" in this, just trying to understand the points, which I've failed to grasp. Are you talk past each other?

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#168

Post by mmt »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #166
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source. 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. (The Affer…

To preface the rest of my response. One of my points why the GPL isn't magic is that developers will just "steal" code if is easier and most companies don't bother checking whether the code is violating licenses when supplying to a third party. > Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of w…

> Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back,

That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under the GPL", and "gets to live as long as people value it" as you were able to quote upthread.

This seems like contributing forward, not back, or downstream, not upstream.

The eventual effect, for publically-released software, usually ends up being an upstream contribution, but that's not automatic.

I'm not an advocating any particular license, but it does seem like you're responding to a strawman that nobody in this subthread (GPL advocate or not) has argued.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#169

Post by lmaximus1983 »

mmt wrote: post #168
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To preface the rest of my response. One of my points why the GPL isn't magic is that developers will just "steal" code if is easier and most companies don't bother checking whether the code is violating licenses when supplying to a third party. > Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of w…

> Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under the GPL", and "gets to live as long as people value it" as you were able to quote upthread. This seems like contributing forward , not back, or downstream, not upstream. The eventual effect, for publically-released software, usually ends up being an upstream c…

This is classic. I've been around the block mate.

Apparently I am responding to a strawman after the OP actually replied and said my assessment of what they said was correct.

This is why I dislike speaking to the FSF crowd. It is much like a religion (as far as I am concerned).

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#170

Post by lmaximus1983 »

mmt wrote: post #167
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source. 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. (The Affer…

> 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. As the parent pointed out, purely-internal isn't what he meant. Distribution can be non-public, which is distribution nonetheless. Such distribution would require availability of source, but that availability wouldn't be public , if the original distribution wasn't pub…

The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes.

The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should.

License arguments wasn't the point of my response. The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

Post reply on HN