5 ms·

GPL (distribute your code) is better than BSD permissive (do what you want)? For whom?

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
For almost all of us. Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it. Hence the Linux kernel snowballing and taking over the world, whereas the BSDs have not, despite being at least as strong technically. The better Linux gets, the more people target it, and the virtuous cycle continues. Additionally, as it grows bigger and bigger, the more of the proprietary competition it crushes underfoot (sorry Solaris), and the more traction FOSS gets.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Hence why companies are now trying to move away from Linux on embedded, e.g. ARM mbed, RTOS, Zephyr, Fuchsia, ....
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    Sure, Linux doesn't have a total monopoly in every domain. Sony used FreeBSD as the basis of the OSs of the PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation 4, for instance, and the work they did will never be contributed back. I don't see any proprietary Unix seriously competing with Linux any time soon though.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      The OSes that I have listed have all BSD style licenses, nothing proprietary about them as such. As for competition with proprietary UNIX, probably not against Aix or HP-UX as they survive on maintenance contracts for big customers like banks and telecommunication companies, but Linux is still no match for high integrity computing OSes, many of which are micro-kernels with POSIX userspace available as possible API.
      - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > The OSes that I have listed have all BSD style licenses, nothing proprietary about them as such. Yes, I know - but the software which ends up getting deployed/used/sold will be proprietary forks, right? That's the whole point: the licence is friendly to proprietary forks. > Linux is still no match for high integrity computing OSes Sure, VxWorks is safe.
        snvzz 8y ago
        >Sure, VxWorks is safe. That goes beyond strawman. Try reading: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernels-really-do-improve-security/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... For as long as Linux is a monolithic design, the whole kernel is going to be part of the TCB. And thus, you should be skeptical of any claims of Linux providing security.
        MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > That goes beyond strawman. It's a strawman when I agree with someone? > And thus, you should be skeptical of any claims of Linux providing security. When did I say Linux has perfect security? I presume the point you're trying to make is that different operating systems, with different architectures, can beat Linux in various regards. Of course this is correct. But for a general-purpose multi-platform Unix-like OS, Linux is king, and will be for the foreseeable future.
  - snvzz 8y ago
    Nothing to do with the license. These systems do things that Linux just can't. Linux is no RTOS, nor does it have a pure microkernel architecture. It can't do anything where latency guarantees are needed (hard realtime) nor high assurance, nor any actual semblance of security. I suggest these posts: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernels-really-do-improve-security/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/
    - jhasse 8y ago
      Fuchsia definitely has something to do with the license. Currently Google is forced to release their changes to the kernel.
      - snvzz 8y ago
        I really do not see a connection between both sentences. There's far enough technical reasons to ditch Linux for a cleaner design.
- lmaximus1983 8y ago
  I actually created an account as this is one of those things that gets repeated a lot and IMO it simply isn't true. 1. The BSDs adoption was severely hurt in the 90s by the AT&T lawsuit, it basically stopped several years of development while the lawsuit legal status was clarified. Linux and the GNU tooling didn't have that problem. If the lawsuit never took place it is doubtful whether the Linux kernel would have got as much interest as it did at the time. 2. If you don't keep up contribute your changes back to upstream (whatever the license) eventually you will be left behind and have to maintain your own incompatible version. It is in your interest to send upstream patches. 3. GPL code gets stolen all the time and put into propriety software. I've worked at loads of places that have just straight out cut and pasted GPL code into their own product (usually this is done without management's approval). Large projects such as the Linux kernel companies can't really get away with it. However a lot of companies don't build software for the masses, most build bespoke software that is only deployed on one or two servers on a company intranet and the general public will never see it. A lot of developers will just straight up steal code (not caring about the license) from wherever. A surprising number of companies still don't even use source control, let alone bother reviewing code. 4. Companies do contribute back to BSD licensed projects, however this is normally financially not through patches.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > software that is only deployed on one or two servers on a company intranet and the general public will never see it. I thought that, in this case, it's the company itself who is the "user" of the software and isn't obligated to do anything to/for/about upstream (since there is no stream.. they're not re-distributing it). In that sense, they're not stealing anything, just using what was, explicitly, free to use.
    - lmaximus1983 8y ago
      The code was compiled, so they cannot make modifications. So it is in violation. You would be right if it was PHP / Python or something else that was interpreted. The real point to take away is that any modifications will never reach upstream.
- trasz 8y ago
  If that were true, BSD-licensed projects like PostgreSQL, LLVM, Xorg, or Apache would die off long time ago, replaced by their GNU-licensed counterparts. Yet we're witnessing the exact opposite happening. Licenses don't work like you think they do. In fact, they work backwards: the decision whether to release the source or not doesn't depend on the license, it's the license - and thus the choice of existing software to base your work on - that depends on the decision on whether not to release the source. BSD makes it possible to release your changes if - and when - you see fit. GPL - doesn't. That's why companies like Sony or Juniper couldn't base their products on Linux. Sure, Sony doesn't give back - but eg Juniper does.
  - auslander 8y ago
    > Juniper does I hope they didn't. But if they try, triple check, or better rewrite :)
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    Using the GPL doesn't guarantee you that your project will take over the world. Using a BSD licence doesn't automatically doom your project. But in the case of the Linux kernel, its use of the GPL appears to be the reason for its success - it's not that it always had compelling technical advantages over BSD. This is Torvalds' idea, not mine [0] (though he doesn't speak to Linux-vs-BSD directly) > Sure, Sony doesn't give back - but eg Juniper does. But in aggregate, Linux has taken over the world, and BSD hasn't. The 'snowball' effect is real. [0] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-say...
    - trasz 8y ago
      Then again, it didn’t help GNU Hurd, or othe GPL-licensed systems. So my guess - given a number of examples - is that it’s not the license that helped Linux.
- pome 8y ago
  The BSD-like license is used not only in BSD operating systems and these projects like Python, Golang, SBCL with BSD-like license playing nice.
kurtisc 8y ago
Trust me, you aren't going to solve this political battle in this comment section.

For almost all of us. Companies extend the BSD OSs with proprietary additions, then abandon the work and it gets lost. With Linux, everyone is forced to play nice and release under the GPL, and the work gets to live as long as people value it. Hence the Linux kernel snowballing and taking over the world, whereas the BSDs have not, despite being at least as strong technically. The better Linux gets, the more people target it, and the virtuous cycle continues. Additionally, as it grows bigger and bigger, the more of the proprietary competition it crushes underfoot (sorry Solaris), and the more traction FOSS gets.

pjmlp 8y ago
Hence why companies are now trying to move away from Linux on embedded, e.g. ARM mbed, RTOS, Zephyr, Fuchsia, ....
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Sure, Linux doesn't have a total monopoly in every domain. Sony used FreeBSD as the basis of the OSs of the PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation 4, for instance, and the work they did will never be contributed back. I don't see any proprietary Unix seriously competing with Linux any time soon though.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    The OSes that I have listed have all BSD style licenses, nothing proprietary about them as such. As for competition with proprietary UNIX, probably not against Aix or HP-UX as they survive on maintenance contracts for big customers like banks and telecommunication companies, but Linux is still no match for high integrity computing OSes, many of which are micro-kernels with POSIX userspace available as possible API.
    - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
      > The OSes that I have listed have all BSD style licenses, nothing proprietary about them as such. Yes, I know - but the software which ends up getting deployed/used/sold will be proprietary forks, right? That's the whole point: the licence is friendly to proprietary forks. > Linux is still no match for high integrity computing OSes Sure, VxWorks is safe.
      - snvzz 8y ago
        >Sure, VxWorks is safe. That goes beyond strawman. Try reading: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernels-really-do-improve-security/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... For as long as Linux is a monolithic design, the whole kernel is going to be part of the TCB. And thus, you should be skeptical of any claims of Linux providing security.
        MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > That goes beyond strawman. It's a strawman when I agree with someone? > And thus, you should be skeptical of any claims of Linux providing security. When did I say Linux has perfect security? I presume the point you're trying to make is that different operating systems, with different architectures, can beat Linux in various regards. Of course this is correct. But for a general-purpose multi-platform Unix-like OS, Linux is king, and will be for the foreseeable future.
- snvzz 8y ago
  Nothing to do with the license. These systems do things that Linux just can't. Linux is no RTOS, nor does it have a pure microkernel architecture. It can't do anything where latency guarantees are needed (hard realtime) nor high assurance, nor any actual semblance of security. I suggest these posts: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernels-really-do-improve-security/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/
  - jhasse 8y ago
    Fuchsia definitely has something to do with the license. Currently Google is forced to release their changes to the kernel.
    - snvzz 8y ago
      I really do not see a connection between both sentences. There's far enough technical reasons to ditch Linux for a cleaner design.
lmaximus1983 8y ago
I actually created an account as this is one of those things that gets repeated a lot and IMO it simply isn't true. 1. The BSDs adoption was severely hurt in the 90s by the AT&T lawsuit, it basically stopped several years of development while the lawsuit legal status was clarified. Linux and the GNU tooling didn't have that problem. If the lawsuit never took place it is doubtful whether the Linux kernel would have got as much interest as it did at the time. 2. If you don't keep up contribute your changes back to upstream (whatever the license) eventually you will be left behind and have to maintain your own incompatible version. It is in your interest to send upstream patches. 3. GPL code gets stolen all the time and put into propriety software. I've worked at loads of places that have just straight out cut and pasted GPL code into their own product (usually this is done without management's approval). Large projects such as the Linux kernel companies can't really get away with it. However a lot of companies don't build software for the masses, most build bespoke software that is only deployed on one or two servers on a company intranet and the general public will never see it. A lot of developers will just straight up steal code (not caring about the license) from wherever. A surprising number of companies still don't even use source control, let alone bother reviewing code. 4. Companies do contribute back to BSD licensed projects, however this is normally financially not through patches.
- mmt 8y ago
  > software that is only deployed on one or two servers on a company intranet and the general public will never see it. I thought that, in this case, it's the company itself who is the "user" of the software and isn't obligated to do anything to/for/about upstream (since there is no stream.. they're not re-distributing it). In that sense, they're not stealing anything, just using what was, explicitly, free to use.
  - lmaximus1983 8y ago
    The code was compiled, so they cannot make modifications. So it is in violation. You would be right if it was PHP / Python or something else that was interpreted. The real point to take away is that any modifications will never reach upstream.
trasz 8y ago
If that were true, BSD-licensed projects like PostgreSQL, LLVM, Xorg, or Apache would die off long time ago, replaced by their GNU-licensed counterparts. Yet we're witnessing the exact opposite happening. Licenses don't work like you think they do. In fact, they work backwards: the decision whether to release the source or not doesn't depend on the license, it's the license - and thus the choice of existing software to base your work on - that depends on the decision on whether not to release the source. BSD makes it possible to release your changes if - and when - you see fit. GPL - doesn't. That's why companies like Sony or Juniper couldn't base their products on Linux. Sure, Sony doesn't give back - but eg Juniper does.
- auslander 8y ago
  > Juniper does I hope they didn't. But if they try, triple check, or better rewrite :)
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Using the GPL doesn't guarantee you that your project will take over the world. Using a BSD licence doesn't automatically doom your project. But in the case of the Linux kernel, its use of the GPL appears to be the reason for its success - it's not that it always had compelling technical advantages over BSD. This is Torvalds' idea, not mine [0] (though he doesn't speak to Linux-vs-BSD directly) > Sure, Sony doesn't give back - but eg Juniper does. But in aggregate, Linux has taken over the world, and BSD hasn't. The 'snowball' effect is real. [0] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-say...
  - trasz 8y ago
    Then again, it didn’t help GNU Hurd, or othe GPL-licensed systems. So my guess - given a number of examples - is that it’s not the license that helped Linux.
pome 8y ago
The BSD-like license is used not only in BSD operating systems and these projects like Python, Golang, SBCL with BSD-like license playing nice.

kurtisc 8y ago

Trust me, you aren't going to solve this political battle in this comment section.