From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 04:11:53 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 6DD0E1065694 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp5.server.rpi.edu (smtp5.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372578FC15 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [128.113.124.121] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.124.121]) by smtp5.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o7N3AJMM001089; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:10:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com> References: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:10:19 -0400 To: "Garry" , From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Bayes-Prob: 0.9999 (Score 5) X-RPI-SA-Score: 5.10 (*****) [Hold at 15.00] COMBINED_FROM X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.225 Cc: 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 04:11:53 -0000 At 1:25 AM +0100 8/23/10, Garry wrote: > >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. Mac OS is the Mach kernel, plus a userland and unix libraries which are very much BSD-ish. They pulled in from all three major BSD projects (NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD). On top of that they have their GUI layer, which is Quartz instead of X11, and the development environment which is based on InterfaceBuilder (from NeXTSTEP days) and Objective-C. The Objective-C api's are called "Cocoa". Which is to say, if you're counting lines-of-code than most of MacOS is *not* from any BSD. The parts which did come from the BSD's are available as source from Apple (in the project called Darwin). If we don't "get much out of Apple", it's because we aren't looking through their source code, and that would not be the fault of Apple. They make sure we can't get much out of their work at the Mach kernel, Quartz, and Cocoa layers, but then they can't get anything out of us for those layers either. So, I don't see what the complaint is. They've also contributed to a number of other open-source projects, projects which have been BSD or GNU licensed. >Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking >for instance. This is true. (or at least it definitely used to be true, I have no idea if Vista and Windows7 are still using the BSD networking stack). So you're saying that you would prefer that Microsoft wrote their own networking stack, which everyone else in the world would be *required* to deal with, instead of using a network stack which was already known and tested? >Having seen how BSD 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. That is your choice, of course. And, well, I don't care. All I care is how I feel based on my work in the BSD's. I'm happy with how my work has been used. I'm happy to keep contributing, either with code or with donations to help others to produce quality BSD-licensed open-source code. BSD-licensing is probably not appropriate for all projects, but it works well for the kinds of projects that I tend to work on. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA