From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 01:36:00 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D089F10656A8 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:36:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rogerk@queernet.org) Received: from mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (mailbox.onlinepolicy.net [209.237.247.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC708FC0A for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Roger-Kloreses-iMac.local (c-76-104-131-7.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [76.104.131.7]) by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659B717AFC86; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C71C9F6.2090403@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:08:06 -0700 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garry References: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com> In-Reply-To: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is this bunk. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:36:00 -0000 It's a lot like complaining that your bull is counterproductive because it isn't a cow and therefore won't yield milk. If one's definition of "productive" is "expands the amount of software in the universe that is non-proprietary," then perhaps the BSD license is "non-productive" -- but that was never its goal. The license serves to improve the amount of reusable software in the universe -- and in doing so, the quality of that code -- and in the process, the idea that entities could leverage it to build proprietary extensions is in the mix. Many companies have built products with proprietary components using BSD-licensed baselines. Rather than start from scratch, they ended up with products that were less expensive and higher-quality. For many of these companies, religious compliance to software liberation is not a pill they would consider swallowing. On 8/22/10 5:25 PM, Garry wrote: > This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this > as twaddle. > > > > Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), > they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get > much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. > > Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for > instance. > > So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, > or filing bugs or whatever. > (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as > well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) > > Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied > in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support > software developed under such licenses. > > > Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple > done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. > So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD > license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most > significantly Apple. > > This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code > in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"