4 ms·

> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than a

> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than any of the pushover-licensed BSDs do.

NexRebular 4y ago
Way more visible use, maybe. BSD is otherwise everywhere (e.g. Sony).
sbuk 4y ago
They're describing libraries. By 'Linux', I'm assuming that you're referring to the OS distributions and not the kernel on it's own. And please drop the pejoratives.
- ninjin 4y ago
  There is seemingly a movement or line of thought that blames the success of “big tech” on permissive licenses. You do not see it as much on Hacker News, but it certainly has spread across IRC and many other forums. What is even odder is that a subset of it uses alt-right terminology to refer to both permissive licenses and their proponents. It is all very weird to experience as someone that entered the FLOSS community in the early 00s. Not to mention having had a personal conversation with rms bemoaning the license schisms and him explicitly expressing gratitude for the BSDs contributing to the larger FLOSS movement.
  - sbuk 4y ago
    I'm beginning to see and hear it more from younger folks--mainly free-speach absolutists. It is indeed a worrying development.
Someone 4y ago
IMO, even if they hadn’t included ’typically’ to weaken their claim, one counterexample doesn’t make that _entirely_ untrue. Also, why use ‘pushover’? OpenBSD has strong principles that they’re willing to give up things for, so implying they’re weak is derogatory and unfair.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  I feel like Linux is so incredibly popular that it does make it untrue, similar to the punchline of <https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/>. I use "pushover" because that's what the FSF uses: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html> > we call them “pushover licenses” because they can't say “no” when one user tries to deny freedom to others.
  - sbuk 4y ago
    The point that Theo de Raadt is making is that this line of thinking is wrong*. Most of the FSF/GPL advocates never seem to look at the why's around people disliking their approach. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102 https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102 as an example. OpenBSD helped the Linux project dual license the ath5k driver. They were thanked by GPL advocates illegally trying to strip the BSD license after the fact. Leaves a bad taste, and one that many of us won't forget. You can have your forced freedom. * "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back." EDIT: The pejoratives are why the FSF message gets lost on an awful lot of people. I admire what they are trying to achieve, the manner in which they go about it makes me not want to engage.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Theo de Raadt is the one who's wrong. When code goes closed source, you're locked out and can't have it at all anymore. When it goes GPL, you can still have it just by going GPL yourself.
      - sbuk 4y ago
        > "When it goes GPL, you can still have it just by going GPL yourself." Which in some people's opinion, is no better. Just a different set of handcuffs.
asguy 4y ago
Linux makes intentional exceptions in the application of the GPLv2 to accomplish this e.g. vDSOs. There’s a reason Linux refused to move to GPLv3. Now apply these exceptions to user space, and you’ve basically reinvented the LGPL.
stonogo 4y ago
Minix uses a BSD-alike license and is built into every Intel processor sold these days.

> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software This is entirely untrue, though. Linux is GPL and it gets way more use than any of the pushover-licensed BSDs do.

NexRebular 4y ago

Way more visible use, maybe. BSD is otherwise everywhere (e.g. Sony).

sbuk 4y ago

They're describing libraries. By 'Linux', I'm assuming that you're referring to the OS distributions and not the kernel on it's own. And please drop the pejoratives.

ninjin 4y ago
There is seemingly a movement or line of thought that blames the success of “big tech” on permissive licenses. You do not see it as much on Hacker News, but it certainly has spread across IRC and many other forums. What is even odder is that a subset of it uses alt-right terminology to refer to both permissive licenses and their proponents. It is all very weird to experience as someone that entered the FLOSS community in the early 00s. Not to mention having had a personal conversation with rms bemoaning the license schisms and him explicitly expressing gratitude for the BSDs contributing to the larger FLOSS movement.
- sbuk 4y ago
  I'm beginning to see and hear it more from younger folks--mainly free-speach absolutists. It is indeed a worrying development.

Someone 4y ago

IMO, even if they hadn’t included ’typically’ to weaken their claim, one counterexample doesn’t make that _entirely_ untrue. Also, why use ‘pushover’? OpenBSD has strong principles that they’re willing to give up things for, so implying they’re weak is derogatory and unfair.

josephcsible 4y ago
I feel like Linux is so incredibly popular that it does make it untrue, similar to the punchline of <https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/>. I use "pushover" because that's what the FSF uses: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html> > we call them “pushover licenses” because they can't say “no” when one user tries to deny freedom to others.
- sbuk 4y ago
  The point that Theo de Raadt is making is that this line of thinking is wrong*. Most of the FSF/GPL advocates never seem to look at the why's around people disliking their approach. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102 https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102 as an example. OpenBSD helped the Linux project dual license the ath5k driver. They were thanked by GPL advocates illegally trying to strip the BSD license after the fact. Leaves a bad taste, and one that many of us won't forget. You can have your forced freedom. * "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back." EDIT: The pejoratives are why the FSF message gets lost on an awful lot of people. I admire what they are trying to achieve, the manner in which they go about it makes me not want to engage.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Theo de Raadt is the one who's wrong. When code goes closed source, you're locked out and can't have it at all anymore. When it goes GPL, you can still have it just by going GPL yourself.
    - sbuk 4y ago
      > "When it goes GPL, you can still have it just by going GPL yourself." Which in some people's opinion, is no better. Just a different set of handcuffs.

asguy 4y ago

Linux makes intentional exceptions in the application of the GPLv2 to accomplish this e.g. vDSOs. There’s a reason Linux refused to move to GPLv3. Now apply these exceptions to user space, and you’ve basically reinvented the LGPL.

stonogo 4y ago

Minix uses a BSD-alike license and is built into every Intel processor sold these days.