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

FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#41

Post by nine_k »

close04 wrote: post #30
asimovfan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how so? could you please elaborate?

It’s becoming too mainstream is what they mean. Any other not immediately obvious parallel to Windows would have warranted an explanation from the get go.

Linux on servers has been very mainstream for last like 20 years.

Big distros like Ubuntu become ever more complicated though, they run a ton of stuff by default, like Windows. OpenBSD is, first of all, very small in comparison. Then, it's obscure enough that most online attackers do not target it.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#42

Post by 2lup382_ »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #28
2lup382_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> used to have so much more leverage back then And maybe that was required back then, and/or maybe it ended up being bad strategy in the long term. Leverage only gets you so far, especially in community and relationships. > Just extremely low morale right now. Not sure if there's even a point to any of this anymore. See I feel the exact opposite. As FOSS license choice matters less, now we can just focus on hacking.…

> now we can just focus on hacking Well, I can't do that. Releasing software under permissive licenses is just wealth transfer from well meaning hackers straight into the pockets of corporations. It just gives it all away, no questions asked. For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now. I'm starting to question whether I should even publish my work.

> For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now.

Then for you it was never about freedom and community, which were the two major goals the Free Software movement were founded on, it was about leveraging copyleft for income generation. Everyone needs to make a living, and that is totally fine, but when you say "Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice [sic]." what you really meant was "pretty sad from the perspective of using this license to generate income". Which, again, no judgement, it just changes the meaning of your post.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#43

Post by coaksford »

mikece wrote: post #3
matheusmoreira wrote: post #2

Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice. Look how little leverage GNU's got these days. Then again, trying to contribute to GNU wasn't exactly a positive experience. Maybe it's for the best.

On the other hand, isn't the FreeBSD user base shrinking and its former users going to Linux?

As someone who very reluctantly fits that description, yes but no. I don't love FreeBSD any less or want to use it any less than anytime in the last 20 years, nor do I like Linux any more than at any time in the last 20 years (less, if anything). But NixOS is the "killer app" that has me on Linux instead of FreeBSD. If either FreeBSD gets a really good NixOS-like setup, or Linux-based NixOS becomes unmaintained, I'm happily going back to FreeBSD again, it has always been excellent and stable to me.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#44

Post by 2lup382_ »

rzerowan wrote: post #25
2lup382_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GPL and copyleft in general is getting less and less relevant as time goes on. Looking at GPL specifically it relies on scarcity. The reason companies would agree to the terms of the GPL in the 1980s, 90s, and even 00s was if you wanted a good compiler, parser, kernel, or library you had only so many choices. There might have been only a few thousand people in the world capable of writing a mature compiler su…

>I think GPL and copyleft in general is getting less and less relevant as time goes on. Looking at GPL specifically it relies on scarcity. The reason companies would agree to the terms of the GPL Therein is the great misunderstanding , the GPL was never written for 'companies' , it was and still is for the User. You, Me a $MEGACORP , sentinel islander - it does not matter the rights are granted to all equally to reus…

> Therein is the great misunderstanding , the GPL was never written for 'companies' , it was and still is for the User.

I didn't say it was, but what it was written for and what it became since writing software has changed so radically are two different things. For example the kernel Linux used to be written primarily by hobbyist hackers, now it is in large part written by $MEGACORP.

> When no one is contributing to the GPL commons the options become more restricted. If one isnt a corp that can write their own library or a 10X coder that can bash it out on their own , leaves the users looking at proprietary solutions or restricted offerings with two tier licences.

Doesn't the progress of FreeBSD (and OpenBSD) fly in the face of that? It only gets better with age, adds new features, and manages to do so while being permissively licensed.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#45

Post by vinceguidry »

naturalmovement wrote: post #22
mikece wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, isn't the FreeBSD user base shrinking and its former users going to Linux?

No. As enshittification encroaches onto Linux the user base is moving the other way. To their benefit, I might add. With ZFS on root in FreeBSD it's a no-brainer. Linux is feeling more and more like a bunch of random tools thrown together as opposed to a complete OS designed to work as a whole.

When has Linux ever been a "complete OS designed to work as a whole"? The Cathedral and the Bazaar was written 29 years ago.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#46

Post by fsflover »

close04 wrote: post #30
asimovfan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how so? could you please elaborate?

It’s becoming too mainstream is what they mean. Any other not immediately obvious parallel to Windows would have warranted an explanation from the get go.

Have you considered Qubes OS then?

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#47

Post by matheusmoreira »

2lup382_ wrote: post #42
matheusmoreira wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now we can just focus on hacking Well, I can't do that. Releasing software under permissive licenses is just wealth transfer from well meaning hackers straight into the pockets of corporations. It just gives it all away, no questions asked. For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now. I'm starting to question whether I should even publish my work.

> For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now. Then for you it was never about freedom and community, which were the two major goals the Free Software movement were founded on, it was about leveraging copyleft for income generation. Everyone needs to make a living, and that is totally fine, but when you say "Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice [sic]." wha…

It is about freedom, but also about not being exploited.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co...

> Why I (A/L)GPL

> Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.

> If you do open source, you’re my hero and I support you.

> If you’re a corporation, let’s talk business.

> I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made.

> Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.

https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/

> To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation.

> You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. That'd be stupid.

> They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.

It's all about the community, about helping our fellow hackers out there, empowering them to take ownership of their computers and use them to the fullest extent.

It's not about helping corporations make billions without cutting us in.

The practice of selling permission to violate the GPL is literally blessed by Stallman, by the way. I even emailed him to confirm.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

So the notion that this goes against the principles of the movement holds absolutely no water.

AGPLv3 gave corporations a choice: either comply and uphold the moral principles of software freedom, or fund development in exchange for permission to violate it. While permissive licenses just give it all away free of charge, AGPLv3 leverages: either we get freedom, or we get paid.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#48

Post by matheusmoreira »

ksec wrote: post #38
matheusmoreira wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. > However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. > The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. > By contrast, the open source idea values mainly p…

It is great that you post and quoted this. In which I suggest you reread the page yourself. It make the case very clear. There are literally 4 - 5 paragraphs on the whole thing with examples what is considered free software. Directly from RMS himself. > Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” mea…

I was talking about the culture and values though. Open source is perfectly fine with proprietary software, and even encourages it. Free software most definitely isn't, and goes out of its way to prohibit it.

They are not the same.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#49

Post by matheusmoreira »

caminanteblanco wrote: post #37
matheusmoreira wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a suggestion, it's a fact. BSD is permissive open source software, not copyleft free software.

Copyleft has never been a hard requirement for free software. If anything I feel like it stands against the deeper philosophy of given no restrictions on usage to the end user. I understand that's not the RMS-take, but he's not the only voice in this community.

Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. It's a question of values.

> he's not the only voice in this community

I'd say Stallman's opinion on free software is the only one that matters. He created it. He's essentially the only person extreme enough to make serious sacrifices just to live free of proprietary software. The dystopia he warned us about inches closer to reality with every day that passes.

And the fact is if you call Stallman's work "open source", you will offend him. I've seen videos of it.

Because they're not the same.

Re: FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

#50

Post by bigstrat2003 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #28
2lup382_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> used to have so much more leverage back then And maybe that was required back then, and/or maybe it ended up being bad strategy in the long term. Leverage only gets you so far, especially in community and relationships. > Just extremely low morale right now. Not sure if there's even a point to any of this anymore. See I feel the exact opposite. As FOSS license choice matters less, now we can just focus on hacking.…

> now we can just focus on hacking Well, I can't do that. Releasing software under permissive licenses is just wealth transfer from well meaning hackers straight into the pockets of corporations. It just gives it all away, no questions asked. For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now. I'm starting to question whether I should even publish my work.

> Releasing software under permissive licenses is just wealth transfer from well meaning hackers straight into the pockets of corporations.

That is nonsense. A permissively licensed piece of software is every bit as free and a gift to the commons as a copyleft licensed piece of software. Yes, corporations get to use it, but so does everyone else. Free software was never about "fuck them corporations", it was about giving your work to others in order that all might benefit. Permissive licensing does that just fine.

Post reply on HN