31–40 of 61 posts
To quota GNU libc manual: > There is no point in freeing blocks at the end of a program, because all of the program’s space is given back to the system when the process terminates. https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Freeing-a... I think many GNU tools just never free any memory. For example, GCC : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66339 -- edit: added GCC as example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to what others said, Valgrind is GPL-licensed. That conflicts with the OpenBSD copyright policy ( https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ), which says: “The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a c…
> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than any of the pushover-licensed BSDs do.
Now apply these exceptions to user space, and you’ve basically reinvented the LGPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had no idea that OpenBSD didn't accept Apache 2 code https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
They maintained apache 1.x in base for a long time. For a small number of releases they switched to nginx and then i think they wrote their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to what others said, Valgrind is GPL-licensed. That conflicts with the OpenBSD copyright policy ( https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ), which says: “The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a c…
> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than any of the pushover-licensed BSDs do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just link to the code instead of executing it as a separate binary
I'm pretty sure parsing ELF binaries is out of scope for kdump(1), sorry, but I don't think that's going to happen. It's not that difficult to run addr2line yourself with the information provided, and that's really for the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to what others said, Valgrind is GPL-licensed. That conflicts with the OpenBSD copyright policy ( https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ), which says: “The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a c…
> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than any of the pushover-licensed BSDs do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're describing libraries. By 'Linux', I'm assuming that you're referring to the OS distributions and not the kernel on it's own. And please drop the pejoratives.
There is seemingly a movement or line of thought that blames the success of “big tech” on permissive licenses. You do not see it as much on Hacker News, but it certainly has spread across IRC and many other forums. What is even odder is that a subset of it uses alt-right terminology to refer to both permissive licenses and their proponents. It is all very weird to experience as someone that entered the FLOSS communit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They maintained apache 1.x in base for a long time. For a small number of releases they switched to nginx and then i think they wrote their own.
Parent is referring to the Apache 2 license, not version 2 of the Apache HTTPD server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, even if they hadn’t included ’typically’ to weaken their claim, one counterexample doesn’t make that _entirely_ untrue. Also, why use ‘pushover’? OpenBSD has strong principles that they’re willing to give up things for, so implying they’re weak is derogatory and unfair.
I feel like Linux is so incredibly popular that it does make it untrue, similar to the punchline of https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/ >. I use "pushover" because that's what the FSF uses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html > > we call them “pushover licenses” because they can't say “no” when one user tries to deny freedom to others.
* "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time.
But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back."
EDIT: The pejoratives are why the FSF message gets lost on an awful lot of people. I admire what they are trying to achieve, the manner in which they go about it makes me not want to engage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to what others said, Valgrind is GPL-licensed. That conflicts with the OpenBSD copyright policy ( https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ), which says: “The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a c…
OpenBSD begrudgingly made an exception for LLVM/Clang, after vocal opposition to the re-licencing. It currently uses LLVM/Clang 13 and has been making progress towards 15. Licensing is not the problem here. Most of the sanitizers are simply not enabled in the version shipped in base, and require runtime libraries that have not been ported to OpenBSD. Valgrind exists in ports, but it is ancient and broken. It does not…
If it isn’t a problem, why do you say “begrudgingly”?
I think they are pragmatic but also do find it a problem. Why else would they say “source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD”?