3 ms·

Am I the only one finding that "openrsync" sounds like "rsync" is not open source? I find it a bit confusing because rsync is GPL. Just like I would find it we

by palata 2y ago

Am I the only one finding that "openrsync" sounds like "rsync" is not open source? I find it a bit confusing because rsync is GPL. Just like I would find it weird for a project to be called openlinux or librelinux... Still it's great to have multiple implementations, of course!

ronsor 2y ago
It's called openrsync because it's developed for and by OpenBSD.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- palata 2y ago
  I truly respect OpenBSD, but I hope they won't end up writing openopenssl :-) (I will admit: I had to check and openssh is actually "the OpenBSD Secure Shell" project, so I guess it makes sense :-) ).
  - ronsor 2y ago
    Sorry, OpenBSD already wrote libressl and libtls
    - palata 2y ago
      Well "libressl" doesn't sound like an open-source rewrite of the proprietary "openssl" :-). I don't really get the point about libtls, though. But I get it, OpenBSD has been using Open* as a prefix for many projects, I didn't know it :-).
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    They called their openssl fork libressl - I assume because of exactly that naming conflict - but most of their "exports" follow the convention; OpenBSD, OpenSMTPD, OpenNTPD, OpenSSH. Possibly others that I don't know off the top of my head.
- bentley 2y ago
  Fun fact, the “open” in OpenBSD doesn’t refer to open source licensing, but to an open development process, including the ability to anonymously checkout the CVS repository without an account, which was a novelty in the 90s.
jitl 2y ago
"free" != open open != "free"
- palata 2y ago
  Are you trying to imply that GPL is not open source?
  - jitl 2y ago
    one is software anarchism, the other is software communism
    - palata 2y ago
      Can you give me one open-source license that is not "free software"?
      - kube-system 2y ago
        According to .... the FSF? They disapprove of a lot of licenses that meet OSI's definition of open source. There's quite a number in this list that meet OSI's definition (or are even explicitly approved by OSI), but are explicitly labelled non-free by FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwa... Two clear examples are: Apple Public Source License 1.x NASA Open Source Agreement
- thayne 2y ago
  The venn diagram of licenses that are "free software" and "open source software" is practically a circle. Both rsync and openrsync are both free software and open source software.
tredre3 2y ago
linux-libre is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre Their intent with the naming is indeed to say that Linux isn't open-source enough.

by palata 2y ago

ronsor 2y ago

It's called openrsync because it's developed for and by OpenBSD.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
palata 2y ago
I truly respect OpenBSD, but I hope they won't end up writing openopenssl :-) (I will admit: I had to check and openssh is actually "the OpenBSD Secure Shell" project, so I guess it makes sense :-) ).
- ronsor 2y ago
  Sorry, OpenBSD already wrote libressl and libtls
  - palata 2y ago
    Well "libressl" doesn't sound like an open-source rewrite of the proprietary "openssl" :-). I don't really get the point about libtls, though. But I get it, OpenBSD has been using Open* as a prefix for many projects, I didn't know it :-).
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  They called their openssl fork libressl - I assume because of exactly that naming conflict - but most of their "exports" follow the convention; OpenBSD, OpenSMTPD, OpenNTPD, OpenSSH. Possibly others that I don't know off the top of my head.
bentley 2y ago
Fun fact, the “open” in OpenBSD doesn’t refer to open source licensing, but to an open development process, including the ability to anonymously checkout the CVS repository without an account, which was a novelty in the 90s.

jitl 2y ago

"free" != open open != "free"

palata 2y ago
Are you trying to imply that GPL is not open source?
- jitl 2y ago
  one is software anarchism, the other is software communism
  - palata 2y ago
    Can you give me one open-source license that is not "free software"?
    - kube-system 2y ago
      According to .... the FSF? They disapprove of a lot of licenses that meet OSI's definition of open source. There's quite a number in this list that meet OSI's definition (or are even explicitly approved by OSI), but are explicitly labelled non-free by FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwa... Two clear examples are: Apple Public Source License 1.x NASA Open Source Agreement
thayne 2y ago
The venn diagram of licenses that are "free software" and "open source software" is practically a circle. Both rsync and openrsync are both free software and open source software.

tredre3 2y ago

linux-libre is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre Their intent with the naming is indeed to say that Linux isn't open-source enough.