3 ms·

Not OP so not sure what OP meant but I think the reason GPLv2 beats BSD here is that code derived from BSD-licensed code is often taken closed source. Industry

by nequo 4y ago

Not OP so not sure what OP meant but I think the reason GPLv2 beats BSD here is that code derived from BSD-licensed code is often taken closed source. Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. Splinters in Linux-based systems are still open source so good modifications can be added to upstream.

throw0101a 4y ago
> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. And the companies that did this paid a price for it when FreeBSD moved forward and they were left behind holding a whole bunch of patches. After the learning the hard way about withholding non-secret sauce patches, many companies contribute back anything that they find in the 'common code' that wouldn't threaten their value proposition. You will regularly see patches with the "Sponsored by" tag in the commit logs: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php Here's one from a few hours ago by Netflix: * https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b68c59e95bef0047fd6fc8a01271a03 https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b... NetApp, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, iXsystems, pfSense, etc are often seen in base, but also in ports and also drivers (Intel, Chelsio, Mellonox). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...
rhabarba 4y ago
> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream The most popular software that was derived from (a number of predecessors and) FreeBSD, Apple’s Darwin, is free software, nobody stops anyone from taking code from there. In fact, quite a few FreeBSD developers are (were?) paid by Apple.
- nelgaard 4y ago
  You might take code from there. But you cannot take code from OS X and add it to Darwin. And that is why I cannot just install Darwin and run it on my computers if I wanted to use e.g., network cards.
  - rhabarba 4y ago
    OS X is Darwin.
- nequo 4y ago
  We only learned by accident in 2017 that Minix is deployed on the Intel Management Engine[1] and we don't know what it does. To this day we don't have the code for the Minix variant that it runs. This wouldn't be the case if Minix was released under GPLv2. Sony also used FreeBSD in PlayStation 4[2] and to my knowledge their modifications have not been open sourced. I may be wrong though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Design [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software
  - rhabarba 4y ago
    At least, the assumption that “nothing” was sent back is wrong. I agree that the BSD license allows to take the code and run away with it, but you don’t have to. In a way, that makes BSD more free than the GPL.
    - nequo 4y ago
      > At least, the assumption that “nothing” was sent back is wrong. That is true, I should have phrased it more carefully. > In a way, that makes BSD more free than the GPL. Yes, BSD is a permissive license and GPL isn't. But the original question was whether GPL leads to more splinters or BSD. I think that the copyleft nature of GPL leads to fewer "effective" splinters since good modifications can be merged into upstream, and what is left unmerged tends to be less important to the success of the parent project. This has helped Linux gain momentum and unfortunately hasn't much helped the BSDs or Minix. I would like to see the BSDs succeed but I suspect that the permissive license has been one of the impediments to that.

by nequo 4y ago

throw0101a 4y ago

> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. And the companies that did this paid a price for it when FreeBSD moved forward and they were left behind holding a whole bunch of patches. After the learning the hard way about withholding non-secret sauce patches, many companies contribute back anything that they find in the 'common code' that wouldn't threaten their value proposition. You will regularly see patches with the "Sponsored by" tag in the commit logs: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php Here's one from a few hours ago by Netflix: * https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b68c59e95bef0047fd6fc8a01271a03 https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b... NetApp, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, iXsystems, pfSense, etc are often seen in base, but also in ports and also drivers (Intel, Chelsio, Mellonox). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...

rhabarba 4y ago

> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream The most popular software that was derived from (a number of predecessors and) FreeBSD, Apple’s Darwin, is free software, nobody stops anyone from taking code from there. In fact, quite a few FreeBSD developers are (were?) paid by Apple.

nelgaard 4y ago
You might take code from there. But you cannot take code from OS X and add it to Darwin. And that is why I cannot just install Darwin and run it on my computers if I wanted to use e.g., network cards.
- rhabarba 4y ago
  OS X is Darwin.
nequo 4y ago
We only learned by accident in 2017 that Minix is deployed on the Intel Management Engine[1] and we don't know what it does. To this day we don't have the code for the Minix variant that it runs. This wouldn't be the case if Minix was released under GPLv2. Sony also used FreeBSD in PlayStation 4[2] and to my knowledge their modifications have not been open sourced. I may be wrong though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Design [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software
- rhabarba 4y ago
  At least, the assumption that “nothing” was sent back is wrong. I agree that the BSD license allows to take the code and run away with it, but you don’t have to. In a way, that makes BSD more free than the GPL.
  - nequo 4y ago
    > At least, the assumption that “nothing” was sent back is wrong. That is true, I should have phrased it more carefully. > In a way, that makes BSD more free than the GPL. Yes, BSD is a permissive license and GPL isn't. But the original question was whether GPL leads to more splinters or BSD. I think that the copyleft nature of GPL leads to fewer "effective" splinters since good modifications can be merged into upstream, and what is left unmerged tends to be less important to the success of the parent project. This has helped Linux gain momentum and unfortunately hasn't much helped the BSDs or Minix. I would like to see the BSDs succeed but I suspect that the permissive license has been one of the impediments to that.