With a recent change that removed dialog in favor of bsddialog, FreeBSD has now retired the last piece of GPL-licensed code in its base system. Although the impact of this change will be minor for …
In my opinion, I just don’t understand permissive licenses. For example, with FreeBSD’s license, companies can essentially “steal” the hard-earned efforts and use them to enrich themselves. For example, FreeBSD could have been a gaming OS, as the PlayStation’s OS is FreeBSD. However, they didn’t give anything back to the community.
Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, require companies to contribute any changes they make to the code back to the community so that it benefits the community as a whole. In this case, there’s no “stealing”, companies need to respect the community’s efforts by giving back.
Both licenses were made before late stage capitalism started in earnest, and when the Net was young, so there’s the matter of perspective.
Imho the GPL was born out of ideology, whereas the BSD was out of a murican university environment (i.e. preparing proto-capitalists to enter the market).
The debate is endless.
To play devil’s advocate for a second - no-one is stealing anything, the code is still right where it was. If I willingly give someone a sandwich, did they steal it? Of course not.
There was a reason that PS chose FreeBSD, and it was because of the licence. If FreeBSD used the GPL then PS wouldn’t have used it, hence there never would have been a FreeBSD gaming OS either way.
Exactly, it’s a defining feature of the project. They don’t care how you use the code as long as you use it. It’s just a different philosophy.
BSDs are just doing their own thing and whether they benefit or not from others using their work is not really a concern.
Take OpenSSH, it’s used by virtually every operating system and just exists to be used. It’s a great contribution to software even if OpenBSD is a tiny marginal thing used by only those that need it. They are cool with that.
There basically isn’t FreeBSD do for gaming as their work is locked away and not shared. If there was no BSD, Sony would have been forced to use a copyleft OS, or make their own. There was a time, a long time ago, where NetBSD was used in routers, etc. But Linux hardware support got to be so much better than NetBSDs, it got to hard to not use it. The more who used, and where forced to open their work, the better Linux got. Today it’s all Linux.
Worth pointing out Oracle/Sun and IBM and OpenOffice. Before the buyout, Sun were changing the OpenOffice license to permissive in a version they would sell to IBM who used the code for their closed Lotus Office. This could be done as OpenOffice had a contributor lience agreement where copyright was handed over. So Sun had all the copyright, so could relience at will. When Oracle bought Sun, it was the final straw. So LibreOffice was born from the copyleft version, without copyright ownership, so locked open. All the development moved there. Oracle relicensed OpenOffice to permissive, and tried donating the project to Apache, but no one cared. It’s been a husk for well over a decade now. And thing good can be copied straight into LibreOffice, but not the other way round. The free money for OpenOffice is over for Oracle, as is the cheap code for IBM. LibreOffice healthier than OpenOffice ever was.
If they really wanted to be a team player, they wouldn’t be clearly avoiding the GPL. Valve are being better. When a company is going out their way to not have to contribute it is because there is stuff they don’t want to. Same with Apple and Sun before them, and endless others. If the BSD ideal worked, the BSDs would be the biggest Unix like distros community. The whole reason copyleft exists is because of the “tragedy of the commons” BSD keeps suffering from. Even if a few companies contribute some of it back, some times.
It’s not stealing when you willingly allow someone to use it however they want. OpenBSD writes: “We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.” If your goal is to polish something like OpenSSH until it’s as good as it can be, the world is better off when robust and secure software spread, also into proprietary systems. When companies use OpenSSH, it does not take away anything from OpenBSD, they are not competitors.
Another way to think of it is the old “you wouldn’t steal a car” commercial.
A company using BSD in their product cannot “steal” it, because we still have the BSDs. They can’t take them away, so its not stealing. It just comes down to your personality and how much you value control over what they are doing with it
(No shade either way from me, if its your work)
In the end, I think it matters less than it seems. Companies can use Linux via either tivoization or proprietary software on top without contributing back, and other companies voluntarily submit patches or pay FreeBSD developers because maintaining a closed source fork is expensive.
i believe it has the advantage of corporate interests not affecting the projects direction. i think linux is doing ok now (other than way too much redhat stuff) but i’m not sure if this is gonna continue after linus is gone.
The TCP/IP stack is a good example where permissive is helpful. Getting a protocol stack adopted. In a world of a mix of open and closed, permissive can paper over cracks.
The community doesn’t put food on the table. Money does.
That’s my somewhat cynical take on it. The reality is that for anything other than hobby projects, devs need to be paid.
If I’m running a large corp, there are several legitimate (capitalist) reasons to use and develop some stuff in the open:
Trust in my products
Easier recruitment
Division of effort
But at some point, money needs to come in. That means I need to have an edge, somewhere. GPL is a risk to that edge, especially GPL3. Now, the actual edge simply might just be ”yeah, we are really good at this, give us money and we’ll help you”, or it’s a proprietary extension to something.
For most open source projects, the devs are mostly full time and paid somehow. Basically, if we want copyleft licenses, fork up the gold.
You say that companies can ”steal” the efforts. Sure, but the alternative isn’t copyleft, the alternative is that the funding goes to proprietary code, unless the existing hobby project is ”captive” enough (e.g. Linux).
I would love to change this, but that would require massive pubic funding of open source projects. Personally, I think governments should slowly migrate to open source and transfer whatever they save on licensing over to open source funding. In my opinion, any model for sustainable open source must include a funding model before I can take it seriously, and most of the copyleft movement simply doesn’t want to take funding seriously.
In my opinion, I just don’t understand permissive licenses. For example, with FreeBSD’s license, companies can essentially “steal” the hard-earned efforts and use them to enrich themselves. For example, FreeBSD could have been a gaming OS, as the PlayStation’s OS is FreeBSD. However, they didn’t give anything back to the community.
Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, require companies to contribute any changes they make to the code back to the community so that it benefits the community as a whole. In this case, there’s no “stealing”, companies need to respect the community’s efforts by giving back.
That’s my two cents anyway.
Both licenses were made before late stage capitalism started in earnest, and when the Net was young, so there’s the matter of perspective.
Imho the GPL was born out of ideology, whereas the BSD was out of a murican university environment (i.e. preparing proto-capitalists to enter the market).
The debate is endless.
To play devil’s advocate for a second - no-one is stealing anything, the code is still right where it was. If I willingly give someone a sandwich, did they steal it? Of course not.
There was a reason that PS chose FreeBSD, and it was because of the licence. If FreeBSD used the GPL then PS wouldn’t have used it, hence there never would have been a FreeBSD gaming OS either way.
Exactly, it’s a defining feature of the project. They don’t care how you use the code as long as you use it. It’s just a different philosophy.
BSDs are just doing their own thing and whether they benefit or not from others using their work is not really a concern.
Take OpenSSH, it’s used by virtually every operating system and just exists to be used. It’s a great contribution to software even if OpenBSD is a tiny marginal thing used by only those that need it. They are cool with that.
There basically isn’t FreeBSD do for gaming as their work is locked away and not shared. If there was no BSD, Sony would have been forced to use a copyleft OS, or make their own. There was a time, a long time ago, where NetBSD was used in routers, etc. But Linux hardware support got to be so much better than NetBSDs, it got to hard to not use it. The more who used, and where forced to open their work, the better Linux got. Today it’s all Linux.
Worth pointing out Oracle/Sun and IBM and OpenOffice. Before the buyout, Sun were changing the OpenOffice license to permissive in a version they would sell to IBM who used the code for their closed Lotus Office. This could be done as OpenOffice had a contributor lience agreement where copyright was handed over. So Sun had all the copyright, so could relience at will. When Oracle bought Sun, it was the final straw. So LibreOffice was born from the copyleft version, without copyright ownership, so locked open. All the development moved there. Oracle relicensed OpenOffice to permissive, and tried donating the project to Apache, but no one cared. It’s been a husk for well over a decade now. And thing good can be copied straight into LibreOffice, but not the other way round. The free money for OpenOffice is over for Oracle, as is the cheap code for IBM. LibreOffice healthier than OpenOffice ever was.
FreeBSD release engineering team lead says Sony is a major contributor but prefers not getting credit so people wouldn’t be able to deduce their future products tech stack
If they really wanted to be a team player, they wouldn’t be clearly avoiding the GPL. Valve are being better. When a company is going out their way to not have to contribute it is because there is stuff they don’t want to. Same with Apple and Sun before them, and endless others. If the BSD ideal worked, the BSDs would be the biggest Unix like distros community. The whole reason copyleft exists is because of the “tragedy of the commons” BSD keeps suffering from. Even if a few companies contribute some of it back, some times.
It’s not stealing when you willingly allow someone to use it however they want. OpenBSD writes: “We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.” If your goal is to polish something like OpenSSH until it’s as good as it can be, the world is better off when robust and secure software spread, also into proprietary systems. When companies use OpenSSH, it does not take away anything from OpenBSD, they are not competitors.
Another way to think of it is the old “you wouldn’t steal a car” commercial.
A company using BSD in their product cannot “steal” it, because we still have the BSDs. They can’t take them away, so its not stealing. It just comes down to your personality and how much you value control over what they are doing with it (No shade either way from me, if its your work)
In the end, I think it matters less than it seems. Companies can use Linux via either tivoization or proprietary software on top without contributing back, and other companies voluntarily submit patches or pay FreeBSD developers because maintaining a closed source fork is expensive.
i believe it has the advantage of corporate interests not affecting the projects direction. i think linux is doing ok now (other than way too much redhat stuff) but i’m not sure if this is gonna continue after linus is gone.
If freebsd was copyleft PlayStation would’ve never used it in the first place. Same as the BSD TCP/IP stack with windows.
The TCP/IP stack is a good example where permissive is helpful. Getting a protocol stack adopted. In a world of a mix of open and closed, permissive can paper over cracks.
The community doesn’t put food on the table. Money does.
That’s my somewhat cynical take on it. The reality is that for anything other than hobby projects, devs need to be paid.
If I’m running a large corp, there are several legitimate (capitalist) reasons to use and develop some stuff in the open:
But at some point, money needs to come in. That means I need to have an edge, somewhere. GPL is a risk to that edge, especially GPL3. Now, the actual edge simply might just be ”yeah, we are really good at this, give us money and we’ll help you”, or it’s a proprietary extension to something.
For most open source projects, the devs are mostly full time and paid somehow. Basically, if we want copyleft licenses, fork up the gold.
You say that companies can ”steal” the efforts. Sure, but the alternative isn’t copyleft, the alternative is that the funding goes to proprietary code, unless the existing hobby project is ”captive” enough (e.g. Linux).
I would love to change this, but that would require massive pubic funding of open source projects. Personally, I think governments should slowly migrate to open source and transfer whatever they save on licensing over to open source funding. In my opinion, any model for sustainable open source must include a funding model before I can take it seriously, and most of the copyleft movement simply doesn’t want to take funding seriously.