7 ms·

I've only experienced "Linux zealotry" from Free Software Foundation types, and I make an effort to avoid them as well because I find it just as odious. However

by na85 6y ago

I've only experienced "Linux zealotry" from Free Software Foundation types, and I make an effort to avoid them as well because I find it just as odious. However there's a massive chunk of Linux community who aren't interested in licensing debates and seemingly just want to get things done. Case in point: I've been using various Linux and BSD distros off and on for about 15 years and have never experienced the zealotry you are referring to coming from the Linux side of the fence. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems a far smaller proportion of the Linux community is spending their time arguing (loudly, obnoxiously) about minor philosophical issues and blasting those opinions into the internet than compared to BSD.

nix23 6y ago
Maybe you met the wrong people, from my PoV the BSD peoples like the BSD2/MIT/ISC/FreeBSD-License, but have no problem too import the CDDL the Apache or the GPLx (at least in the pkg), whatever works. On the other hand with Linux, CDDL absolutely NOT acceptable (hi Linus) but ultra-proprietary Firmware-Blobs are ok. Some zealotry experience from a Linux foundation guy? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005181
- na85 6y ago
  Yeah see the difference is that I just don't care about software licenses. At all. It's such an inconsequential issue that gets a small frothy-mouthed minority so worked-up that I find it baffling how anyone could spend so much time and energy worrying about.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Absolutely, at the beginning of my career i was a big fan of Stallman and the FSF, until i realized that he loves to hear himself and repeat's over an over the same stuff. What he says is the only truth and nothing else. I want cool technologie with a free license and ZERO lawyer's involved.
- morning_gelato 6y ago
  The proprietary firmware is in another git repository [1], there are no blobs in the mainline kernel to my knowledge. Further, distributions ship this firmware as a separate package, so it's not bundled with the kernel. This approach appears to be fairly similar to what OpenBSD does [2]. This doesn't seem too different from how the Linux community treats other licence-incompatible software such as OpenZFS. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin... [2] http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/ http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/
  - nix23 6y ago
    Oh whait...why is then ZFS such a big problem? Just put it in a different repo at kernel.org right? Well on the other hand, no one wants ZFS in the mainline kernel, it is perfect like it is, at least for me :)
    - morning_gelato 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by ZFS being such a big problem, the CDDL license is considered incompatible and therefore OpenZFS isn't going to be considered for upstreaming. Also, most of OpenZFS development is driven by companies that use it with the Linux kernel, so clearly there isn't that much of a problem with using OpenZFS and Linux. It's pretty similar to how the BSDs may not allow something in base due to licensing, but will allow it in ports/pkg. If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org, why would kernel.org host an out of tree kernel module that is never going to be upstreamed? Firmware on the other hand is needed to initialize and use a ton of hardware, and so it makes sense to have a central repository for vendors to submit required firmware. More importantly, why would the OpenZFS community even want to be on kernel.org when they support multiple operating systems and have also not pushed for upstreaming? I really don't think OpenZFS is being treated any better or worse than other license-incompatible kernel modules. I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base [1], or OpenBSD sticking with Clang 8 in base because of the switch to the Apache 2.0 license [2]. It's pretty normal for software projects to care about licensing. [1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300....
- mcsofake 6y ago
  > BSD peoples like the BSD2/MIT/ISC/FreeBSD-License, but have no problem too import the CDDL the Apache or the GPLx (at least in the pkg), whatever works. If by "BSD peoples" you mean the FreeBSD/NetBSD community, then yes. But OpenBSD devs deem CDDL to be unacceptable: http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2015/asiabsdcon/mgp00020.html http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2015/asiabsdcon/mgp00020.html https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD
  - nix23 6y ago
    OpenBSD was always different, just talking about FreeBSD.

by na85 6y ago

nix23 6y ago

Maybe you met the wrong people, from my PoV the BSD peoples like the BSD2/MIT/ISC/FreeBSD-License, but have no problem too import the CDDL the Apache or the GPLx (at least in the pkg), whatever works. On the other hand with Linux, CDDL absolutely NOT acceptable (hi Linus) but ultra-proprietary Firmware-Blobs are ok. Some zealotry experience from a Linux foundation guy? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005181

na85 6y ago
Yeah see the difference is that I just don't care about software licenses. At all. It's such an inconsequential issue that gets a small frothy-mouthed minority so worked-up that I find it baffling how anyone could spend so much time and energy worrying about.
- nix23 6y ago
  Absolutely, at the beginning of my career i was a big fan of Stallman and the FSF, until i realized that he loves to hear himself and repeat's over an over the same stuff. What he says is the only truth and nothing else. I want cool technologie with a free license and ZERO lawyer's involved.
morning_gelato 6y ago
The proprietary firmware is in another git repository [1], there are no blobs in the mainline kernel to my knowledge. Further, distributions ship this firmware as a separate package, so it's not bundled with the kernel. This approach appears to be fairly similar to what OpenBSD does [2]. This doesn't seem too different from how the Linux community treats other licence-incompatible software such as OpenZFS. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin... [2] http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/ http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/
- nix23 6y ago
  Oh whait...why is then ZFS such a big problem? Just put it in a different repo at kernel.org right? Well on the other hand, no one wants ZFS in the mainline kernel, it is perfect like it is, at least for me :)
  - morning_gelato 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by ZFS being such a big problem, the CDDL license is considered incompatible and therefore OpenZFS isn't going to be considered for upstreaming. Also, most of OpenZFS development is driven by companies that use it with the Linux kernel, so clearly there isn't that much of a problem with using OpenZFS and Linux. It's pretty similar to how the BSDs may not allow something in base due to licensing, but will allow it in ports/pkg. If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org, why would kernel.org host an out of tree kernel module that is never going to be upstreamed? Firmware on the other hand is needed to initialize and use a ton of hardware, and so it makes sense to have a central repository for vendors to submit required firmware. More importantly, why would the OpenZFS community even want to be on kernel.org when they support multiple operating systems and have also not pushed for upstreaming? I really don't think OpenZFS is being treated any better or worse than other license-incompatible kernel modules. I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base [1], or OpenBSD sticking with Clang 8 in base because of the switch to the Apache 2.0 license [2]. It's pretty normal for software projects to care about licensing. [1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300....
mcsofake 6y ago
> BSD peoples like the BSD2/MIT/ISC/FreeBSD-License, but have no problem too import the CDDL the Apache or the GPLx (at least in the pkg), whatever works. If by "BSD peoples" you mean the FreeBSD/NetBSD community, then yes. But OpenBSD devs deem CDDL to be unacceptable: http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2015/asiabsdcon/mgp00020.html http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2015/asiabsdcon/mgp00020.html https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD
- nix23 6y ago
  OpenBSD was always different, just talking about FreeBSD.