3 ms·

It is interesting that "open" part of openrsync refers to license -- BSD, vs original rsync's GPL It's not often I see "open" to mean "non-GPL" in software :)

• zdw 8y ago
  rsync went GPLv3 a while ago, and many businesses don't trust some of the newer clauses that were added. Similarly, the more strict strict BSD crowd has issues with the Apache2 license clauses regarding revocation - see here: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
• protomyth 8y ago
  I get the feeling the "open" part was because they were hoping to get it included in OpenBSD like OpenSMTPD, etc.
  • meruru 8y ago
    Yeah, that was my assumption too. It's coming from the OpenBSD community, so openrsync it is.
• enneff 8y ago
  Stallman himself makes a big fuss about "Open Source" not being equivalent to "Free Software". See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
• anjbe 8y ago
  Fun bit of history: the “Open” here comes from OpenBSD; but the “Open” in OpenBSD came from the development process, not the license. Before Git and SVN, we had CVS, and to check out code from a CVS repository you needed to have an account on the CVS server. If you wanted to contribute but didn’t already have a developer account, you were limited to writing patches against release tarballs or whatever alternative method upstream supplied. One of OpenBSD’s major projects in the mid 90s was creating anonymous CVS, where anyone could check out code without any account. This came from Theo’s experience after losing his NetBSD account, where he found himself unable to make meaningful contributions anymore without the ability to cvs checkout, cvs diff, etc. So when he started OpenBSD, he had in mind to open up the development process to everyone, account or not. This is described in the commentary for the OpenBSD 6.1 release song: https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#61 https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#61