From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Apr 18 00:06:17 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04162B02A5 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 00:06:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dalescott@shaw.ca) Received: from smtp-out-no.shaw.ca (smtp-out-no.shaw.ca [64.59.134.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493tXm30N8z42DT for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 00:06:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dalescott@shaw.ca) Received: from cds220.dcs.int.inet ([10.0.153.144]) by shaw.ca with ESMTP id Paztj1SoQ62brPazujEpES; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:06:14 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shaw.ca; s=s20180605; t=1587168374; bh=uEeKpu23rvnAIYOV8RtidVR10VK6rUyeHejJ8lVIlEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject; b=SEPeiBHpxHWZluUab4wh7AAErs31u36WRVkxiQeGOaajhNUxBpTTZYN23JSbhFiez QDqls2wGxRLB7IJGq+gV0h5IasTgg3ld4eztNSbW0gq0n7x5VNUVZAuaQhokiHoezW 6xpjrmkCjQ0l4mfi2mtc6ULm3+U8BCDfAQN4EMnj6o/Gq9YdQ8JxkXwdR+6w5u3UB0 TQXLfxhiCX8tVZoXt6BFtDyiGn2ydYeLETkazT7X56R9cQw2FV14pAzotGFknyVDoF ab2raL9lCVTjzOeDZ9YXaa3UUdmUDdVvmRxzsw7l1KJs7vYH0RRbbNMxPLrqL1ZCGz wxGnXkRuB+Vfw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shaw.ca; s=s20180605; t=1587168374; bh=uEeKpu23rvnAIYOV8RtidVR10VK6rUyeHejJ8lVIlEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject; b=SEPeiBHpxHWZluUab4wh7AAErs31u36WRVkxiQeGOaajhNUxBpTTZYN23JSbhFiez QDqls2wGxRLB7IJGq+gV0h5IasTgg3ld4eztNSbW0gq0n7x5VNUVZAuaQhokiHoezW 6xpjrmkCjQ0l4mfi2mtc6ULm3+U8BCDfAQN4EMnj6o/Gq9YdQ8JxkXwdR+6w5u3UB0 TQXLfxhiCX8tVZoXt6BFtDyiGn2ydYeLETkazT7X56R9cQw2FV14pAzotGFknyVDoF ab2raL9lCVTjzOeDZ9YXaa3UUdmUDdVvmRxzsw7l1KJs7vYH0RRbbNMxPLrqL1ZCGz wxGnXkRuB+Vfw== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=LKf9vKe9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=YjOmSjUxhsfmstj0eziGpw==:117 a=FKkrIqjQGGEA:10 a=on0NmgUIp3IA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=5mcg790sAAAA:8 a=m4Zl5SzZAZKJC3fGeqwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=7Ddi8RmdbTIA:10 a=IjZwj45LgO3ly-622nXo:22 a=uQeDYW1NI25gHNlrW_eK:22 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:06:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Dale Scott To: Polytropon Cc: Aryeh Friedman , Paul Pathiakis , freebsd-questions Message-ID: <1659102270.119843446.1587168373188.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <20200417213025.16ba5877.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <3f1496d1f598c84b3871b630f161256e152aca75.camel@tom.com> <681077991.2278153.1587146552233@mail.yahoo.com> <20200417213025.16ba5877.freebsd@edvax.de> Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [162.223.103.50, 162.223.103.50] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3899 (ZimbraWebClient - GC80 (Win)/8.8.15_GA_3895) Thread-Topic: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture Thread-Index: u4trQaiRa9wKYvC7almomXcJY/deDQ== X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfH7iFk+4fUW5964jD0OfeNk902mdUeXNxzBxA5qynSyABBPhk+qxxe0pdHPcvsEce/wwPasw+Psh9bUQ48tDR1Ecu5UJwIPrT2+2/N5iFgV5YM++ttyl hJKWGMh2MAZk5ex8E/1zu7bwJDJi/FY0xc8ejWnNyuydGj87ijhUwkoM0RFyyKgILlwRPrSUbCpermd48XraTeRvYHqrCRs2nZGG3U78wRmY50o3KDK5kUlJ 9c7c9G3GDZxavGH9NPsR4dTq5aRLBNmpy0J3bkcqatw= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 493tXm30N8z42DT X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=shaw.ca header.s=s20180605 header.b=SEPeiBHp; dkim=pass header.d=shaw.ca header.s=s20180605 header.b=SEPeiBHp; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=shaw.ca; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of dalescott@shaw.ca designates 64.59.134.9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dalescott@shaw.ca X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.09 / 15.00]; HAS_XOIP(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[9.134.59.64.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.18]; R_SPF_ALLOW(0.00)[+ip4:64.59.134.0/25]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[shaw.ca:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(0.00)[shaw.ca,none]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[9.134.59.64.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[shaw.ca.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.97)[-0.969,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(0.00)[shaw.ca:s=s20180605]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6327, ipnet:64.59.128.0/20, country:CA]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; BAD_REP_POLICIES(0.10)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; URIBL_PBL(0.01)[dalescott.net]; IP_SCORE(-2.53)[ip: (-6.73), ipnet: 64.59.128.0/20(-3.27), asn: 6327(-2.55), country: CA(-0.09)]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 00:06:18 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Polytropon" > To: "Aryeh Friedman" > Cc: "Paul Pathiakis" , "freebsd-questions" > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:30:25 PM > Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architectur= e ... > The _choice_ of licensing terms is very important to a programmer. IANAL but... ;-) I think of "open-source" as a legal framework for a community to share soft= ware development by pooling their resources. The license protect the invest= ment the participants make (e.g. the time spent coding, testing, writing bu= g reports, writing user manuals, supporting other members of the community,= etc.), and also gives protection from an actor acting in bad faith. When a= company (a single legal entity) develops software, regardless of whether t= he programmer is a full-time employee or a contractor, the code generally b= elongs to the company. There simply is no "my code", it is "their code" and= I relinquished my rights to it in return for compensation. The developer d= oes not have the right to re-use a single character for any reason (which i= s different from it not being worth the effort to penalize an infraction). = Of course, developers own the knowledge in their heads that enabled them to= write the code, and can use that knowledge to write new code (although oth= er contractual restrictions may be in force, such as a non-competition or n= on-disclosure agreement). A single developer providing software under an open source license is for t= he most part simply being altruistic and helping their fellow developers by= providing tutorials, examples and proof-of-concepts for projects consisten= t with a single developer. The developer's personal beliefs will determine = what license is appropriate - but generally either "permissive" (e.g. BSD) = or "copyleft" (e.g. GPL). A permissive license might be appropriate if the = goal is to provide benefit to as many people as possible with minimum const= raints (a permissive license typically only imposes keeping the original li= cense and copyright notice, and prevents being sued for errors or not being= fit for use). However, if you believe someone who modifies your code has an obligation to= share in kind, then imposing this through a copyleft license will likely b= e appropriate. Note though that the GPL only requires source to be shared w= ith those who receive the software in non-source form, which may not includ= e the original developer! Also note that payment is irrelevant so far as th= e license is concerned. For example, the GPL does not prevent me from "sell= ing" a customized version of ERPNext (an enterprise ERP application license= d using the GPL), so long as I distribute the source for my changes to thos= e who I have provided my modified version to. (I mean "selling" in concept = as I would not own the code, but would be able to charge for customization = services). The license becomes more significant for projects with multiple developers,= projects that incorporate open-source software to expedite development, an= d companies who use the software. Vague ownership of the code or vague allo= wed use creates risks for the entire community. What if two developers work= together for a year to create a software application but then part ways. W= ho owns the rights to the codebase? Do the developers share ownership joint= ly or individually? Can one developer continue development of the software = on their own if the other developer doesn't want them to? Does each develop= er have rights only to the characters they typed? What are the risks to a c= ompany if the project cannot show they have a legal right to offer the soft= ware (which could be the result of including GPL code in a BSD project, or = re-using code created under contract to an employer)? What are the risks if= the company uses the software to create their own product? What if the sof= tware is an enterprise ERP, CRM or FRACAS system and the company uses it to= run their business! A company that proactively protects shareholders from = risky legal situations would have to just walk away..... Licensing itself isn't complicated, it's all the other details.... ;-) ---=20 Dale Scott=20 Engineering and NPI Leader=20 Web: www.dalescott.net=20 Email: dale@dalescott.net=20