4 ms·
> a lot of GPLv2 code "A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5". GPLv2 licenced software: • cvs • texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manua
by brynet 7y ago
> a lot of GPLv2 code
"A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5".
GPLv2 licenced software:
• cvs
• texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manuals)
• mkhybrid
• readline
• gcc/gdb/bintuils, supporting libraries libstdc++/libiberty*
The amount of GPL licensed software the resides in OpenBSD base is trivial compared to the entirety of software comprising a complete Unix operating system. Including its own implementation of a wide variety of network protocols, and being the home of OpenSSH, and tmux and many more.
https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
* On architectures that have transitioned to a LLVM toolchain, we already have a reference platform (arm64) which doesn't build or install gcc/binutils or supporting libraries, this will happen on other platforms as well, where they're currently installed alongside clang. OpenBSD has already transitioned to clang, lld, libc++/libc++abi on i386/amd64/armv7/octeon.
- microcolonel 7y ago> cvs You know, I had forgotten that they failed to bring OpenCVS to bear. Isn't it kinda silly to be concerned about replacing a GPLv2-licensed SCM with another one?
- Fnoord 7y agoWhat are you on about? CVS is GPL. OpenCVS is BSDL. Git is GPL. Got is BSDL. I got nothing against GPL, but I am pro diversification (competition = good, monoculture = bad). Furthermore, these projects add more than just different license. Mainly, better security. PS: Got, trendy name. Got got?
- microcolonel 7y agoSure, but the idea seems to be that using git, as is, would mean relying on more GPLv2 software; my point is that it doesn't. By all means, if OpenCVS or Got were actually brought to a useful state, that'd be great, but there's no great crisis of new GPLv2 reliance in using Git. I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. In the mean time, justifying not using Git for OpenBSD on the basis of license falls flat, when you realize you're using GNU CVS anyway.
- ben_bai 7y ago> I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. That would be got(1). Since yesterday version 0.3, 0.4 and then 0.5 was "released". It's still in early development but good enough for a casual user like me to import the OpenBSD src and start using it. Created some commits, branches, performed rebases. Looks great, but still some rough edges. Also tog(1) is great.
- Fnoord 7y agoHi, I clearly misunderstood your post. I implied you didn't know the licenses while I did not understand the "to bear" part of your post, at all. Furthermore, I am sorry if I came across as offensive. You make a good point in this post, clarifying your viewpoint. A viewpoint I can relate to.
- microcolonel 7y agoIt's alright, I am used to being misunderstood, so I choose not to be offended and misunderstand the misunderstander's misunderstandings. :- )
- knorker 7y agoGot is an absolutely terrible name. It's like "Go". It doesn't google well, and it's a proper word that will be used in the same sentences as this project. Funny-because-confusing open source project names stopped being funny in the 90s.
- dang 7y agoHey, could you please not break the site guidelines by taking personal shots at other users, being snarky, or posting in the flamewar style? It makes this place worse, regardless of how solid your underlying points are. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, we'd appreciate it.
- Fnoord 7y agoHi Dan, thanks for the heads up. I agree I could have worded the flagged posts more positive. I've attempted to improve this after you posted your warning. Let me know if you still have concerns. Thanks!