4 ms·

I love seeing that GPL license. Nobody can try to pull an Apple with the OS stealing valuable momentum and userbase. Whether you approve or not of such behavior

I love seeing that GPL license. Nobody can try to pull an Apple with the OS stealing valuable momentum and userbase. Whether you approve or not of such behavior, it's pretty unambiguous that it happens.

oneweekwonder 9y ago
> Apple with the OS stealing valuable momentum and userbase. What did they "steal" that is of value that nobody can access after the "theft"? Also their not alone because there is a `etc\hosts` file in my windows driver directory.
- vorotato 9y ago
  Stealing momentum and userbase are not theft, but rather meant to convey a loss for the open source project despite being the ones who got the ball rolling. It was expressly permitted by the BSD license, so I'm not saying the Apple did anything wrong, but rather pointing out a opinion about a strategic misstep by the BSD license. for context https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/41109/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/41109/
  - magic_quotes 9y ago
    Please, Linux is the direct competitor of FreeBSD, not anything Apple-related. This is obvious GPL-vs-BSD trolling attempt and you know that.
    - vorotato 9y ago
      It's not about the users it's about the developers, and no I'm not trying to troll. I'm sorry that what I said upsets you, but I don't think I was saying anything offensive. I admit "Stealing" is a loaded word and I was using it loosely, I didn't think it would upset people because I wasn't meaning it literally.
striking 9y ago
Succeeding by making use of open source is not "stealing." Were Sony's developers stealing when they integrated FreeBSD into the PS4? No. They were following the licensing terms set by the FreeBSD project. Apple's XNU is actually also released as open source (for the most part; last I checked, the parts that pertained to iOS weren't exported). It's based on Mach (which wasn't licensed in an open source way! http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license.info http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license...) as well as 4.3BSD (which is BSD-licensed).
- vorotato 9y ago
  Stealing momentum and stealing a product are entirely different things, I never said using open source products in your business without contributing is stealing. It can however rob a project of momentum. Yes a business can share their progress, but without the gpl they do not have to. I should have known that was a loaded word, what word would you have used there so that I don't upset you in the future?
  - bonzini 9y ago
    Even with the GPL, as long the software is only run in house, you don't have to contribute back.
    - vorotato 9y ago
      There is no software license where that isn't true. I don't even know how such a license could be enforced anyway so it's a bit silly. Neat fact though.
  - striking 9y ago
    No word would avoid "upsetting" me, as it's not the word I take issue with. I think the premise of your argument is wrong. If a company comes up with a new feature for a piece of open source software, it is in their best interests to push that code upstream. When they do so, the maintainers will continue to develop new features while maintaining this upstreamed feature. As long as someone else finds use in that feature, the company basically recoups their "investment" made by publishing it. This is true no matter what OSS license your code is published under. And companies that don't upstream their code will fall behind those that do (except when it comes to companies that deal with drivers and hardware; that's a whole different ballpark). With less-copyleft-than-GPL licenses, companies are allowed to choose what they share. I believe this weans them onto the Open Source train rather than purely allowing them to steal from it. If you're rallying for software freedom above all else, why not back the AGPL instead? It's so copyleft it's GPL incompatible, because it covers SaaS as well as traditional software.

oneweekwonder 9y ago

> Apple with the OS stealing valuable momentum and userbase. What did they "steal" that is of value that nobody can access after the "theft"? Also their not alone because there is a `etc\hosts` file in my windows driver directory.

vorotato 9y ago
Stealing momentum and userbase are not theft, but rather meant to convey a loss for the open source project despite being the ones who got the ball rolling. It was expressly permitted by the BSD license, so I'm not saying the Apple did anything wrong, but rather pointing out a opinion about a strategic misstep by the BSD license. for context https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/41109/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/41109/
- magic_quotes 9y ago
  Please, Linux is the direct competitor of FreeBSD, not anything Apple-related. This is obvious GPL-vs-BSD trolling attempt and you know that.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    It's not about the users it's about the developers, and no I'm not trying to troll. I'm sorry that what I said upsets you, but I don't think I was saying anything offensive. I admit "Stealing" is a loaded word and I was using it loosely, I didn't think it would upset people because I wasn't meaning it literally.

striking 9y ago

Succeeding by making use of open source is not "stealing." Were Sony's developers stealing when they integrated FreeBSD into the PS4? No. They were following the licensing terms set by the FreeBSD project. Apple's XNU is actually also released as open source (for the most part; last I checked, the parts that pertained to iOS weren't exported). It's based on Mach (which wasn't licensed in an open source way! http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license.info http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license...) as well as 4.3BSD (which is BSD-licensed).

vorotato 9y ago
Stealing momentum and stealing a product are entirely different things, I never said using open source products in your business without contributing is stealing. It can however rob a project of momentum. Yes a business can share their progress, but without the gpl they do not have to. I should have known that was a loaded word, what word would you have used there so that I don't upset you in the future?
- bonzini 9y ago
  Even with the GPL, as long the software is only run in house, you don't have to contribute back.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    There is no software license where that isn't true. I don't even know how such a license could be enforced anyway so it's a bit silly. Neat fact though.
- striking 9y ago
  No word would avoid "upsetting" me, as it's not the word I take issue with. I think the premise of your argument is wrong. If a company comes up with a new feature for a piece of open source software, it is in their best interests to push that code upstream. When they do so, the maintainers will continue to develop new features while maintaining this upstreamed feature. As long as someone else finds use in that feature, the company basically recoups their "investment" made by publishing it. This is true no matter what OSS license your code is published under. And companies that don't upstream their code will fall behind those that do (except when it comes to companies that deal with drivers and hardware; that's a whole different ballpark). With less-copyleft-than-GPL licenses, companies are allowed to choose what they share. I believe this weans them onto the Open Source train rather than purely allowing them to steal from it. If you're rallying for software freedom above all else, why not back the AGPL instead? It's so copyleft it's GPL incompatible, because it covers SaaS as well as traditional software.