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

FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

colatkinson.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#391

Post by MayeulC »

linuxftw wrote: post #276
72deluxe wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? I am certain it's accelerating. More and more people use the Internet for their daily life and more and more services are "going digital". I know some 16 year olds (born 2003, after XP how depressing, I feel old) and the concept of NOT having the Internet and dirt cheap music streaming etc. is completely alien to them. They also have no concept of privacy and will install every service known to man on t…

They are using the internet, but they're no longer internet citizens. They don't have any understanding of how it works (even on a basic level), and are being walled off into proprietary apps like cattle.

I would tend to agree with this. But we don't have to spend much time upbringing them to that level.

There are likely a few dynamics at play for this "eternal September": initial population size and increase rate, target population and its attrition rate, and transfer rate between the two. I'll see if I can run a few plots...

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#392

Post by trasz »

chinesempire wrote: post #383
trasz wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can. FreeBSD has been doing it for ages.

FreeBSD has a license compatible with GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD MacOS XNU doesn't. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apsl2

And how’s that relevant?

Another example would be the closed source VMWare ESX, which is definitely not GPL-compatible.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#393

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

eropple wrote: post #390
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So release code under duel AGPL and commercial licences... Most companies won't touch AGPL and will be very happy to pay for the commercial licence.

I agree that that's part of it!

Basically it comes down to companies having systems for paying invoices. It's hard to get small and medium sized companies to make charitable donations - especially to open source which doesn't even help their corporate social responsibility goals.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#394

Post by fierarul »

saagarjha wrote: post #369
fierarul wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 > after spending thousands of dollars on a MacOS system Note how much the developer also pays in hardware and in subscriptions like the Apple Developer account. Apple does not give free certificates for open source projects. Everybody must pay!

It’s not like those things are useless outside of the context of this project.

A paid Apple Developer account just to sign an open-source license is pretty useless.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#395

Post by laughinghan »

pjmlp wrote: post #378
laughinghan wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. "Not even close to sustainable", you say, then complete the sentence by describing the situation in which Linux has been and continues to be sustainable.

Here is the part you keep ignoring "other developers paying to use Linux based software".

What is the relevance of that part? Your claim that open source projects can't be sustainable is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether there are any Linux developers who are payed by other developers in order to use Linux-based software.

Similarly, your claim that "open source folks" don't value open source software as worth paying for is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether they pay out of their personal bank accounts or push their Fortune 500 employers to donate money and time (which every Fortune 500 calculates in terms of money).

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#396

Post by otikik »

hmottestad wrote: post #133
otikik wrote: post #78

I'm fortunate enough to have been paid to do open source code for the last ~10 years or so. I am thus a huge open source & free source advocate, and I am completely biased for it. I think everything done here seems legal, because BSD licensing pretty much allows for this (I am not a lawyer though, and I haven't examined how things were with third-party contributions for example). Morally, the only fault I can say on…

I'm very happy for you getting paid to contribute to open source. I wish I could find someone willing to sponsor me. My field is fairly narrow though with few users and not that much commercial action.

Just to clarify. I'm not "sponsored". I am payed to do software. Something someone else wants done. I wouldn't work on it on my free time. But it's still open source.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#397

Post by mtrower »

Danieru wrote: post #29
rahuldottech wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm misinformed, but I don't see your point? The original author of code is always free to stop publishing their software as FOSS, regardless of which license they use, as long as they don't try and stop the re-distribution and forking of existing FOSS releases?

In this case the original author was an employee of Google and is not the current maintainer. Google then released their implementation under the BSD. It was forked and worked on, and eventually it now comes to the maintainer. Had GPL been used at any point the current maintainer would not own full copyright and thus not have legal grounds to distribute binaries without source. Original authors can only unilaterally…

> My comment is also not about the maintainer. My comment is about how BSD as a license is often framed as an equivalent choice to GPL or other copyleft licenses.

Are they really? But they're clearly not the same. Both are "open" licenses, but one is permissive, and the other is strong copyleft. The intentions behind them are quite different, and I don't see how anyone could read them and not understand this.

Still, I don't appreciate the aspersions I see being cast in this thread towards application of the BSD license. When I release OSS, I prefer to do so under MIT license - because I just want to put it out there for people to use, should it prove useful to them. I don't expect anything in return for it, nor do I wish to place restrictions on its use. Why should I be crucified for selecting a license that accurately reflects my intentions?

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#399

Post by 72deluxe »

z3t4 wrote: post #379
72deluxe wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree! I can't see it getting any better for 99% of users either - you have to be quite technical. And once DNS over HTTPS is the norm (thanks Google + Microsoft) I literally have no clue what I'm going to do - I won't be able to stop any of the tracking domains requested or "telemetry". It's a nightmare and I think the Internet will be "over" for me at that point. eg. Little Snitch tells me all the outgoing requests…

You can block all IP ranges owned by the tracking companies. Sure many services will stop working. Some people go vegan, some people go GNU. There are plenty of content to discover beneath the mainstream commercials. There is so much content on the web, and the Internet is not just the web. That I'm sure you can live a happy life, without consuming the services which business model is centered around how many ads, tr…

Yes this is true. I am quite happy living my life without all of this garbage, but more interested in how to effectively be able to stop this kind of garbage without constantly playing whack-a-mole.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#400

Post by chinesempire »

trasz wrote: post #392
chinesempire wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeBSD has a license compatible with GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD MacOS XNU doesn't. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apsl2

And how’s that relevant? Another example would be the closed source VMWare ESX, which is definitely not GPL-compatible.

It is relevant because you can't legally distribute GPL code linked to non-gpl compatible code.

In fact VMWare and FSF/SFC have been fighting over it for the past 10 years.

Even though the court dismissed the claim, VMWare announced that will remove the code in question (https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/march-2019-hellw...)

You can read more about it here

https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/03/09/0423243/vmware-tou...

In fact VMWare realese the source code of their drivers (among the other things) because they are licensed under the GPL

https://www.vmware.com/download/open_source.html

And maintains the repositories on Github with much of the GPL code they use

https://github.com/vmware

Post reply on HN