Since I know that most of the younger open source folks are obsessed with MIT for some reason
The bigtech actively peddled the idea that copyleft licenses are somehow evil and less free than permissive licenses. Their intention was of course to encourage free labor that they could exploit. Unfortunately, many in the community supported that idea due to vested interests, or uncritically bought into the propaganda.
Given the long history of companies not upstreaming to BSD (WindRiver, PlayStation, Apple), I would say yea, it’s fairly obvious BSDs are exploited? Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
You might see short term gains because companies can innovate without giving back but yeah, definitely not the kind of stuff I want to support.
But would rather have another kernel because GPL. What google did, was creating a (mostly closed) ecosystem they control on top of the open source base.
Exploited? This is what the license is made for. You can take freebsd and do what you like - it’s free as in air, no strings attached other than the licence text.
You might not understand why the authors use MIT-like licensing
Insightful comment! This is what we need to build a good community!!
If you don’t like MIT/BSD licensing it’s fine with me, but to claim those that use it is stupid or exploited because of their choices. These are people far smarter than you and capable of making their own choices.
My understanding is that FreeBSD has no issues with Apple basing their OS on FreeBSD. But you guys probably know better
I tend to agree with this take; as a pedantic side note, though, I’m not sure that OS X was ever based on FreeBSD – they took the unix userland, sure; but from the very start (NextSTEP), the kernel was derived from the Mach kernel, which itself was a fork of the 4.3BSD kernel; and the core libraries were written from scratch, all in the interests of marketing “quick application development” capability to Next’s customers. (Actually there’s an interview with S. Jobs somewhere where he lays this out very clearly; it was the late 80s/early 90s, the heyday of object-oriented toolkits & VMs after all)
I’m sure they’ve helped themselves liberally to the FreeBSD kernel for features; though still, OS X never was ‘based on’ FreeBSD (let alone a ‘FreeBSD with a pretty coat of paint’, as people like to say).
Yeah - it would have been nice of them to inform him. I still don’t think he was “screwed over” by anyone and it seems like he doesn’t either. He updated his code for them without asking what they were using it for. And as he’s against the ME itself he claims he would not have cooperated if he had known.
So do you see MIT as a potential backdoor for embrace extend extinguish? And a general erosion of the philosophy of open source? I tend to like GPL and MIT both. I lean more towards copyleft myself but I have come to appreciate a more permissive license. even leaving out smaller developers, if a big company decides they’re intent on making money using open source tools, I don’t think they’re gonna change their whole gameplan because something in the toolchain is GPL licenses.
deleted by creator
Microsoft already uses ripgrep in vscode which they distribute as a proprietary build.
The bigtech actively peddled the idea that copyleft licenses are somehow evil and less free than permissive licenses. Their intention was of course to encourage free labor that they could exploit. Unfortunately, many in the community supported that idea due to vested interests, or uncritically bought into the propaganda.
FreeBSD seems to thrive on a mit like license - why can’t Linux do the same?
According to what metrics is FreeBSD thriving?
Their own - did you read up on their status reports so far this year?
What’s your take on freebsd and how development and the system is going. Are they ruined by exploitation?
Given the long history of companies not upstreaming to BSD (WindRiver, PlayStation, Apple), I would say yea, it’s fairly obvious BSDs are exploited? Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
You might see short term gains because companies can innovate without giving back but yeah, definitely not the kind of stuff I want to support.
Ok, to be fair, they would probably have done the same like Google with Android.
Google and many other phone manufacturers contributed a lot to the upstream kernel because of android.
But would rather have another kernel because GPL. What google did, was creating a (mostly closed) ecosystem they control on top of the open source base.
Exploited? This is what the license is made for. You can take freebsd and do what you like - it’s free as in air, no strings attached other than the licence text.
You might not understand why the authors use MIT-like licensing
I tend not to understand cucks either
Insightful comment! This is what we need to build a good community!!
If you don’t like MIT/BSD licensing it’s fine with me, but to claim those that use it is stupid or exploited because of their choices. These are people far smarter than you and capable of making their own choices.
My understanding is that FreeBSD has no issues with Apple basing their OS on FreeBSD. But you guys probably know better
I tend to agree with this take; as a pedantic side note, though, I’m not sure that OS X was ever based on FreeBSD – they took the unix userland, sure; but from the very start (NextSTEP), the kernel was derived from the Mach kernel, which itself was a fork of the 4.3BSD kernel; and the core libraries were written from scratch, all in the interests of marketing “quick application development” capability to Next’s customers. (Actually there’s an interview with S. Jobs somewhere where he lays this out very clearly; it was the late 80s/early 90s, the heyday of object-oriented toolkits & VMs after all)
I’m sure they’ve helped themselves liberally to the FreeBSD kernel for features; though still, OS X never was ‘based on’ FreeBSD (let alone a ‘FreeBSD with a pretty coat of paint’, as people like to say).
FreeBSD has over and over again been taken advantage of by companies that haven’t contributed virtually anything back.
deleted by creator
Are you talking about Minix and how they went BSD license in 2000 to attract users? Seeing as it went downhill pretty fast in the 90’s?
deleted by creator
Yeah - it would have been nice of them to inform him. I still don’t think he was “screwed over” by anyone and it seems like he doesn’t either. He updated his code for them without asking what they were using it for. And as he’s against the ME itself he claims he would not have cooperated if he had known.
Well the point is that he wouldn’t have the need to know if he has used something like GPL.
Removed by mod
So do you see MIT as a potential backdoor for embrace extend extinguish? And a general erosion of the philosophy of open source? I tend to like GPL and MIT both. I lean more towards copyleft myself but I have come to appreciate a more permissive license. even leaving out smaller developers, if a big company decides they’re intent on making money using open source tools, I don’t think they’re gonna change their whole gameplan because something in the toolchain is GPL licenses.
If there’s enough community outrage, they might just get the attention of one of the several open source foundations