5 ms·

That's what I think Netflix is not even a global thing. While projects like FreeBSD and Linux will keep the platform open for next big thing.

lstamour 13y ago
You may be a bit confused. GNU keeps things open. FreeBSD and/or Linux ... well, I don't mean to troll. :)
- eyko 13y ago
  I don't consider that trolling, just statement of fact. But I guess it depends on what each person considers free. GNU has a concept of freedom that it tries to protect via the GPL. Licenses like the BSD or MIT do not. Personally, I think this licensing difference is what makes companies use code from one but not the other. E.g. Apple's Darwin and it's kernel (XNU) contains code from BSD. While Darwin is "open source", it acts as the core/foundation of a closed source OS. Had they used a GNU kernel like Linux, or GNU libraries (glibc) then they'd have had an issue or two with certain uses in conjunction with closed source software (e.g. statically linking glibc). I reckon that influences decisions on what to use. Perhaps the best example to fit your comment is JunOS, a closed source, FreeBSD based OS. In Netflix's case, it does seem that they modify some of FreeBSD to fit their use case, and they boast about how they will contribute back to the FreeBSD project any changes that they make. The BSD license does _not_ require them to do so, and who are we to know if they're actually contributing everything back. If they used a GPL'd OS, they might be obliged to do it, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't believe, however, that the license played any part in Netflix's choosing of FreeBSD, and I don't believe that what your comment points out should be considered trolling :)
  - cwyers 13y ago
    The GPL wouldn't require Netflix to contribute changes they make to operating systems running on their own servers, either. The GPL says you can't distribute binaries built from modified source without distributing your source modifications, but if you're not distributing binaries, you're really under no obligation to contribute your changes to anyone. If Netflix was using Linux as its server OS, it could keep its changes to itself simply by not distributing Netflix Linux to anyone outside Netflix.
    - rakoo 13y ago
      To bring things a little bit further, this specificity (not having to redistribute the code when using it as a service) is precisely why AGPL[0] exists: if Netflix were to use AGPL code, and I were to use Netflix services, then I could claim the source code of the service under AGPL. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
- protomyth 13y ago
  GPL is open for a self-selected group of developers, BSD is open for all developers and a self-selected group passes their changes back.
  - chongli 13y ago
    GPL is open for all users. BSD is open for users of a self-selected group of developers.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      GPL is only open to users who have a developer willing to distribute the code in a workable form. Given the GPL is often used in the "pay us if you want to ship" mode, I don't see much to recommend it versus BSD. GPL can die just as easily as BSD without developer support.
  - belorn 13y ago
    What is open for all vs open for some will always come down to the definition of the word "open". If we are talking about open as in permission to use, modify and distribute, then both licenses are equally "open". If we are talking about open as in permission to close down the permission for others to modify or distribute newer version, and sue anyone who acts different - Then we do have one license that is more "open". One could also argue that a standard business model of today rely on being able to threaten users with lawsuit if they modify or share the software. The "openness" to use such model is only available for one kind of licenses and not by others. I might not go as far as calling it more open, but then I have a distinct opinion on the word open.
    - lstamour 13y ago
      Aw, geez, and here I tried to avoid these debates. I used "open" to try and imply that GNU's license will keep the source code "in the open", as "open" implies something different from "free". I'm not going to argue that one is better than another, or that one gives more rights to derivative users or not. That way lies politics and madness :)
- X4 13y ago
  The morale of the society and demand makes one or the other successful. You and I feel that companies today, that means 2013, have finally decided to try OSS seriously and this is something what other companies imitate. Monkey style, the first adopter's success is giving clue for those afraid of trying new things. The corporate culture is not too big to fail too and I believe that hirings of new or younger managers like Marissa Meyer will help to kill corporate culture to some degree, even if it's not where we would like to have it. To be precise, making corporate culture an open culture. One that shares, despite the cost and risk of monkey style adaption by their opponents. This is what I'm waiting for. (Yes I know what she did, but it's nonetheless getting better for Yahoo, or hopefully so) That means, for developers who build a startup using the XaaS business model, only MIT or BSD works really well. While LGPL and GPL may work, but require legal steps, where there is no money for lawyers and such. These startups cannot compete against the corporate enterprise market, like Google for example. And according to the theory of "The rich get richer", this will not change, unless someone clever enough, uses system theory to subvert and defeat the corporate culture, or the whole society backs this idea, ie. to stop the inevitable destruction of the remaining planetary resources. Guess why SpaceX wants to mine asteroids. It's not that resources are rare or something, they are simply rare, because someone with the budget reserved a large amount for himself, to control the market. Yes this is virtually a power Google also has, it could make the barrier of entry for any startup so hard, that those who want succeed need to be financed by them (through acquiring) or by visionary investors. Please don't get this as Google hate, it's just a logical observation and I am also doing human errors from time to time. When you find a logical flaw, I'm curious to discuss that with you.

lstamour 13y ago

You may be a bit confused. GNU keeps things open. FreeBSD and/or Linux ... well, I don't mean to troll. :)

eyko 13y ago
I don't consider that trolling, just statement of fact. But I guess it depends on what each person considers free. GNU has a concept of freedom that it tries to protect via the GPL. Licenses like the BSD or MIT do not. Personally, I think this licensing difference is what makes companies use code from one but not the other. E.g. Apple's Darwin and it's kernel (XNU) contains code from BSD. While Darwin is "open source", it acts as the core/foundation of a closed source OS. Had they used a GNU kernel like Linux, or GNU libraries (glibc) then they'd have had an issue or two with certain uses in conjunction with closed source software (e.g. statically linking glibc). I reckon that influences decisions on what to use. Perhaps the best example to fit your comment is JunOS, a closed source, FreeBSD based OS. In Netflix's case, it does seem that they modify some of FreeBSD to fit their use case, and they boast about how they will contribute back to the FreeBSD project any changes that they make. The BSD license does _not_ require them to do so, and who are we to know if they're actually contributing everything back. If they used a GPL'd OS, they might be obliged to do it, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't believe, however, that the license played any part in Netflix's choosing of FreeBSD, and I don't believe that what your comment points out should be considered trolling :)
- cwyers 13y ago
  The GPL wouldn't require Netflix to contribute changes they make to operating systems running on their own servers, either. The GPL says you can't distribute binaries built from modified source without distributing your source modifications, but if you're not distributing binaries, you're really under no obligation to contribute your changes to anyone. If Netflix was using Linux as its server OS, it could keep its changes to itself simply by not distributing Netflix Linux to anyone outside Netflix.
  - rakoo 13y ago
    To bring things a little bit further, this specificity (not having to redistribute the code when using it as a service) is precisely why AGPL[0] exists: if Netflix were to use AGPL code, and I were to use Netflix services, then I could claim the source code of the service under AGPL. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
protomyth 13y ago
GPL is open for a self-selected group of developers, BSD is open for all developers and a self-selected group passes their changes back.
- chongli 13y ago
  GPL is open for all users. BSD is open for users of a self-selected group of developers.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    GPL is only open to users who have a developer willing to distribute the code in a workable form. Given the GPL is often used in the "pay us if you want to ship" mode, I don't see much to recommend it versus BSD. GPL can die just as easily as BSD without developer support.
- belorn 13y ago
  What is open for all vs open for some will always come down to the definition of the word "open". If we are talking about open as in permission to use, modify and distribute, then both licenses are equally "open". If we are talking about open as in permission to close down the permission for others to modify or distribute newer version, and sue anyone who acts different - Then we do have one license that is more "open". One could also argue that a standard business model of today rely on being able to threaten users with lawsuit if they modify or share the software. The "openness" to use such model is only available for one kind of licenses and not by others. I might not go as far as calling it more open, but then I have a distinct opinion on the word open.
  - lstamour 13y ago
    Aw, geez, and here I tried to avoid these debates. I used "open" to try and imply that GNU's license will keep the source code "in the open", as "open" implies something different from "free". I'm not going to argue that one is better than another, or that one gives more rights to derivative users or not. That way lies politics and madness :)
X4 13y ago
The morale of the society and demand makes one or the other successful. You and I feel that companies today, that means 2013, have finally decided to try OSS seriously and this is something what other companies imitate. Monkey style, the first adopter's success is giving clue for those afraid of trying new things. The corporate culture is not too big to fail too and I believe that hirings of new or younger managers like Marissa Meyer will help to kill corporate culture to some degree, even if it's not where we would like to have it. To be precise, making corporate culture an open culture. One that shares, despite the cost and risk of monkey style adaption by their opponents. This is what I'm waiting for. (Yes I know what she did, but it's nonetheless getting better for Yahoo, or hopefully so) That means, for developers who build a startup using the XaaS business model, only MIT or BSD works really well. While LGPL and GPL may work, but require legal steps, where there is no money for lawyers and such. These startups cannot compete against the corporate enterprise market, like Google for example. And according to the theory of "The rich get richer", this will not change, unless someone clever enough, uses system theory to subvert and defeat the corporate culture, or the whole society backs this idea, ie. to stop the inevitable destruction of the remaining planetary resources. Guess why SpaceX wants to mine asteroids. It's not that resources are rare or something, they are simply rare, because someone with the budget reserved a large amount for himself, to control the market. Yes this is virtually a power Google also has, it could make the barrier of entry for any startup so hard, that those who want succeed need to be financed by them (through acquiring) or by visionary investors. Please don't get this as Google hate, it's just a logical observation and I am also doing human errors from time to time. When you find a logical flaw, I'm curious to discuss that with you.