4 ms·

It would be unwelcome for BSD projects to complain about freeloaders given "freeloading" is explicitly authorized. You can take a quick look at https://en.wiki

It would be unwelcome for BSD projects to complain about freeloaders given "freeloading" is explicitly authorized. You can take a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free... for a non exhaustive list of products based on FreeBSD. Some of them are doing some contributions, maybe some of them are 100% open source (I don't know), but clearly some are not open sourcing their most added value stuff, even when it is a clear derivative of BSD code.

steinuil 10y ago
And? If FreeBSD had a more restrictive license, the developers of those products would have simply chosen another similar project, or used proprietary software.
jordigh 10y ago
BSD projects sometimes do complain about their code getting put into GPLed code (usually Linux). It's bizarre. They'd rather have their code locked up into someone else's codebase than having it always free in someone else's codebase.
- air 10y ago
  Proprietary codebase does not deprive original project from potential contributors. Gpl'd fork might
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    Heaven forbid that developers have a choice in what they contribute to!
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    On the contrary, closed products very often compete against open ones. Potential contributors often never hear about the Open Source projects used behind their television, phone, routers, editors, games...
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  When it is in a proprietary codebase it can potentially be contributed back. Once it is in GPL it is tainted and while similarly to a corporate codebase the original contributer could give a BSD licenced patch back to the BSD project, it diverts other open source contributors away from the original project. Look at OpenOffice compared to LibreOffice, for an example of this. If there wasn't a GPL version the community would have rallied around the Apache version.
  - bkor 10y ago
    > Look at OpenOffice compared to LibreOffice, for an example of this. If there wasn't a GPL version the community would have rallied around the Apache version. OpenOffice not working at all is not due to the license, at all. OpenOffice didn't work for a long time. Distributions have always added a huge patch to make it work nicely for them. There's been calls for ages to change things and not much was done with it. Eventually they started LibreOffice and focussed on making it easy to contribute. In above, nothing is about the license!!
  - igk 10y ago
    Sorry if I'm wrong, but wasn't libre office partially started because OpenOffice stagnated?
    - josefx 10y ago
      The first release of Apache Open Office was 2012, almost a year after LibreOffice. Open Office itself stagnated while still dual licensed under Suns proprietary license and LGPL. I think one of the complaints was that they took too long to merge patches by contributors.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    OpenOffice removed a bunch of GPLed code. As a result, it just does less than LibreOffice. Why work on a less functional codebase? I don't know if that's the reason why it didn't pick up, but generally I think of code that goes to the Apache Foundation as going there to die. The foundation seems to receive abandoned code that nobody wants to maintain.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Taking BSD or MIT code and making it GPL IMO is to make it less usable for no good reason.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    The BSD/MIT licensed code is still available. Your statement is meaningless.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mook 10y ago
  If I remember correctly, they complained when people replaced the BSD license with GPL, which was a license violation (you don't get to arbitrarily relicense the code). That seems strictly worse than the code being used following the original license terms (a copy of the license in the manual, not publishing the source). Also, I thought that was resolved by putting the license back in the file, causing it to be licensed under the intersection of BSD and GPL.
lima 10y ago
The OpenBSD people complain all the time with OpenSSH and the like.

steinuil 10y ago

And? If FreeBSD had a more restrictive license, the developers of those products would have simply chosen another similar project, or used proprietary software.

jordigh 10y ago

BSD projects sometimes do complain about their code getting put into GPLed code (usually Linux). It's bizarre. They'd rather have their code locked up into someone else's codebase than having it always free in someone else's codebase.

air 10y ago
Proprietary codebase does not deprive original project from potential contributors. Gpl'd fork might
- Arizhel 10y ago
  Heaven forbid that developers have a choice in what they contribute to!
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  On the contrary, closed products very often compete against open ones. Potential contributors often never hear about the Open Source projects used behind their television, phone, routers, editors, games...
snovv_crash 10y ago
When it is in a proprietary codebase it can potentially be contributed back. Once it is in GPL it is tainted and while similarly to a corporate codebase the original contributer could give a BSD licenced patch back to the BSD project, it diverts other open source contributors away from the original project. Look at OpenOffice compared to LibreOffice, for an example of this. If there wasn't a GPL version the community would have rallied around the Apache version.
- bkor 10y ago
  > Look at OpenOffice compared to LibreOffice, for an example of this. If there wasn't a GPL version the community would have rallied around the Apache version. OpenOffice not working at all is not due to the license, at all. OpenOffice didn't work for a long time. Distributions have always added a huge patch to make it work nicely for them. There's been calls for ages to change things and not much was done with it. Eventually they started LibreOffice and focussed on making it easy to contribute. In above, nothing is about the license!!
- igk 10y ago
  Sorry if I'm wrong, but wasn't libre office partially started because OpenOffice stagnated?
  - josefx 10y ago
    The first release of Apache Open Office was 2012, almost a year after LibreOffice. Open Office itself stagnated while still dual licensed under Suns proprietary license and LGPL. I think one of the complaints was that they took too long to merge patches by contributors.
- jordigh 10y ago
  OpenOffice removed a bunch of GPLed code. As a result, it just does less than LibreOffice. Why work on a less functional codebase? I don't know if that's the reason why it didn't pick up, but generally I think of code that goes to the Apache Foundation as going there to die. The foundation seems to receive abandoned code that nobody wants to maintain.
reitanqild 10y ago
Taking BSD or MIT code and making it GPL IMO is to make it less usable for no good reason.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The BSD/MIT licensed code is still available. Your statement is meaningless.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mook 10y ago
If I remember correctly, they complained when people replaced the BSD license with GPL, which was a license violation (you don't get to arbitrarily relicense the code). That seems strictly worse than the code being used following the original license terms (a copy of the license in the manual, not publishing the source). Also, I thought that was resolved by putting the license back in the file, causing it to be licensed under the intersection of BSD and GPL.

lima 10y ago

The OpenBSD people complain all the time with OpenSSH and the like.