You can put all your work under any permissible license and use any GPL library. The same is true for anyone who get the work from you. No need to re-license anything. Large programs often use multiple different software licenses without having to relicensing everything to be the same. They just have to be compatible. Why not relicense your software then? There are many domains where the GPL is not applicable, gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production.
This is why most lua libraries are MIT, as something that is heavily used in games, using anything other than is not applicable. It is also the reason rms created the lgpl, as a copyleft library that wont relicense software that depends on it. The engine is not the game, it's missing all the assets 3D models, textures, audio, scripts, etc. The assets don't need to be GPL-licensed. Most games use one of the few popular game engines: Unreal Engine, Source or Unity, which while not being open-source, are available to anyone and make it possible for anyone to build and release games with them.
That doesn't stop them from making money. The code and logic of games can be open source look at Dwarf Fortress or ports of Doom while the assets are still closed source.
The bigger fear I always see is that someone will steal the code and run it without paying. In reality, this almost never happens. People don't care enough to run their own version of the game, or any other software. Because the license was chosen with a clear reason. And if that license was not GPL otherwise the discussion would be moot , this is not an option. You keep saying that requiring other parts of the software to be relicensed isn't reasonable.
It's obviously a matter of opinion, but if your program depends on my code, my code is obviously a part of your program, thus it does not seem unreasonable that you pass the same freedoms to your own users as I gave to you when you were starting and my library saved you time and perhaps made sure that your program was on time and budget.
What is reasonable is indeed a matter of opinion, where not conflicting with laws. You have to accept then though, that what you consider a reasonable demand, might be unreasonable to others, if not offensive. And please, stop abusing the term "freedom". Freedom isn't that well defined of a concept. Fo example I may say I have the freedom to not be blasted by your loud music, whereas you might say you have the freedom to play it.
Both can be true to a certain extent and both are freedoms. It's just that the context and amount matters. If a judge decides that you're indeed infringing on my freedoms by blasting the music this loud, your own freedom will be restricted. The GPL does restrict the freedom to restrict the guarantees it provides.
Right, but it tries to restrict the freedom of software authors to select the license they wish. It does try to restrict the freedom of the programmer to license the part of the software the programmer created. That's not true. When you are the sole author of the program, you clearly can choose whatever license you wish.
As long as you don't mooch off the efforts of others. Freedom is well defined, the freedom you speak of, requires a ruling body to exhert force. By implementing laws freedom itself is modified. Given that the FSF is not the ruling body of software, they should not have a say on what freedom entails. IMO As a language that is used by all, its best to refer to freedom as copyfree. The question of freedom comes when a user then comes to your software and then wants to: - Use the program for any purpose, - Freely examine the source code, - Make improvements and distribute them to others in the spirit of being a good neighbor.
These things sound very sensible, don't they? Do you disagree that they should be called "freedoms"? And those are the freedoms GPL helps protect. GPL uses freedom correctly, it's just not freedom to the programmer, but to the end user. No dishonesty, no misleading and no abuse.
No it abuses the concept, because while it claims to assert freedoms, at the same time it tries to takes away others. And the representation of this by the FSF is deceptive.
They managed to antagonize Linus Torwalds entirely this way. A person, who should be their strongest supporter. Every freedom takes away another's freedom to abuse it. And then, suddenly, Linux stops receving the myriad device driver contributions that it does now. Even if he did, I don't think the BSDs would change to linux. Plus I imagine many of the contributors contribute because of the license, which would anger them.
Funny that GPL does violate your definition of freedom. Because it doesn't end where my freedom starts. It tries to impose a new license of my software linked to the GPL software. And it imposes obligations to the user beyond what the user was given. You do not have the freedom to just take "my" code and do whatever.
The moment you include my GPL'd code, you're stepping onto my ground and thus need to abide by some rules I set out for those that do.
You're still free to not use my code, but not to do as you wish if you do, because at that moment you're stepping onto my own freedom. I haven't claimed that I am free to do what I wish to do, nor do I ask for that.
The point is, that the GPL contradicts what you stated before "yours ends where mine starts". GPL tries to exactly cross that line.
The "your end where mine starts" means precisely that your ability to do whatever ends when you decide to use my code, because that is where my freedom to impose certain requirements on your usage of my code starts.
There's nothing the GPL tries to cross, that's exactly what that quote means in general society as well. For example, you're free to wear the same shoes you do outside in your own house, but if you're coming into my own house, I have the freedom to require you not to do that. Yes you have. Telling me to wear different shoes once I visited your house is something different.
So if you think that is a reasonable request, then I have to tell you that I will refrain from visiting your house. And advise others to be very considerate about visiting your house. What makes telling you to wear different shoes any different? I am just asking you to abide by my rules if you're going to make use of my resources. The GPL does the same. And yes, you're free to refrain from visiting my house if you disagree with what I am asking of you, same as you're free to not use GPL code and therefore not abide by its requirements.
The only thing you are not free to do is come to my house and ignore my rules, likewise use GPL code and ignore the GPL. That's it. Couldn't agree with you more, but Microsoft and other proprietary software makers have the same right to dictate what people can do with their software.
Now, is not sharing software immoral because 1 it can be copied at no cost, or 2 because you can't morally tell people what to do with the bits once they have a copy of it?
You can make the argument that free software results in higher quality software, but it's wrong to make a case for it morally as GNU does. GPL never says you can't charge for software. Thanks for the link - that's an interesting read which I'll have to work through more thoroughly later. Putting a paywall up is a method of control.
I think I represented GNU's position fairly. And where's the contradiction? GPL software is always open, the knowledge is out there, and people can use and share it. The only thing you're not allowed to do is do a change and "close" it.
It's like you're begrudging freedom fighters their actions because they are violating the feudal rights of their historical oppressors. I don't mind abiding to your rules when I come to your house and while I stay in your house. I find it bizarre that you think that you can impose rules onto me after I left your house and even ask me to impose the rules onto others.
If you're using my GPL code, you never 'left my house'. In fact, you're still inside. DanBC on April 13, root parent prev next [—]. How do you feel about NDAs or official secrets? What about them? I have no fundamental problem with them. DanBC on April 13, root parent next [—]. But aren't these examples of having to follow someone else's rules after you've left their house?
So what? It is part of the deal, and as I wrote, I would sign an NDA only for a good reason, that is usually a paid job. Also, the NDA concerns only the specific task and not other things I am doing at that time or later.
I also prefer the BSD community as it lacks the hubris of "a greater mission" that the GPL fosters leading to this notion of good and bad. Plurality of thought, use and outcomes are a good thing. If that wasn't the case, companies like IBM wouldn't be able to use GPL'd software, as they famously weren't able with Crockford's "don't do evil" license.
The GPL is really about guarantees. You rely on guarantees every day to be able to go about your day. People like me just wish to extend certain guarantees, not warranty , to the software we write.
HorkHunter on April 13, root parent prev next [—]. I honestly cannot fathom the idea of using my time maintaining or developing something that would be used commercially while the user has absolutely no copyleft obligations! Nokinside on April 13, root parent prev next [—]. BSD is good when you consider you code as a snapshot that should be maximally available. GPL is good when you think the code as a long term valuable investment and process that must be protected.
GPL is also really good choise for small to medium businesses with dual licensing. If you want so sell develop a software product and not just a service. If you own full copyright, you can always change the licensee later, so going with GPL first usually the safest choice. Even with lets say BSD-licensed code, the code you publish and maintain stays free.
There is only the possiblitly that some entity maintains their private fork of your code and distributes that. But that doesn't change the state of the freedom of the code you publish. Also, it is extremely unlikely, that a company does significant changes to a well-maintained code and doesn't push them back upstream, as this reduces their maintenance effort.
Yet, if you want to completely rule out the possiblity of that "propriatary fork", one could amend the license so that the distributor has to include the sources. This is a legitimate request. If one says: "but that is what the GPL does", that is not correct.
The blog posted by the parent poster clearly lists a lot of problems with the variations of the GPL license. GPL does exactly that, prevents the distribution of proprietary forks. It's not "just" a library. The library is presumably needed for your program to function. If yes, there's noting wrong with the author of that library requiring you pass on the same guarantees with your software that you were given by them when you decided to use their library, which they spent their precious time building.
If you had read my post carefully, I was explicitly stating that the GPL does that. But it doesn't exactly that. As I wrote, it imposes a lot of unrelated restrictions to the code usage. And yes, for myself I consider it an unacceptable demand, that I change the license of code unrelated to the library I am using, just because that library wants to impose that.
And for that, in the literal sense, in most use cases, GPL is unacceptable for me and consequentely I keep a wide distance to GPL coded libraries. We're free to make our own licensing choices of course. This is all in an interest of a discussion. As I said, this is a choice between not passing on any less freedom you yourself received vs the absolute freedom to do whatever.
As far as the GPL is concerned, your code cannot be more free, because it's precisely the limits the GPL imposes that make it valuable. The BSD licenses are more 'absolutely free' in a libertarian sense, whereas the GPL offers certain guarantees and if your definition of freedom fails within, they're a lot stronger than what BSD offers, but it's not for everybody.
You cannot separate the user from the programmer, because without a programmer there isn't a software for the user to use. And to require to make the source available for any GPL software used in a project is a very valid request. To relicense other parts of the project isn't. That's just a question of where one software ends and another begins. Essentially, for lawyers to decide. But that's also why LGPL exists. The question is clearly determined by copyright law. If I call a function, this doesn't make the calling function a derived work.
However, there are some technical details with the license which make problems. It basically assumes that the code put under LGPL is delivered as a shared library. But that doesn't work with many languages. Especially the requirement, that the user needs to be able to modify and relink the code under LGPL is a big headache, if not a deal breaker in many situations. It does make the called function a part of your program, however. Because if that function is not available on the target system in a shared library or whatever , your program will simply blow up.
Well, sure, a missing function will cause the program to fail to function. But what has this to do with the discussion? The copyright of the program is clearly mine.
The copyright of the functions linked into my program is that of the functions copyright holder. The license regulates my right to link the functions in my program. But unfortunately, the license tries to affect my copyrights to my program parts. It just regulates the conditions under which the hopefully dynamic library is distributed.
If the question comes to court IIUC, this particular case has never been tested , you are just as likely to be ordered to pay for copyright infringement damages, rather than release your software under a GPL-compatible license. You'd have to rewrite it somehow as well, of course. To be clear I'm not dogmatic about either, I think both copyleft and permissive licenses have their place - it's simply subjective - some software feels more suited to GPL and others more suited to BSD.
Copyleft is NOT free as in freedom. I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it. This "copyleft is free as in freedom " claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free as in freedom. Its more like free but this gun pointed at your temple will shoot if you do not agree with The One True Philosophy.
That doesn't sound like freedom to me; more like thinly veiled tyranny. I suppose this is mostly the fault of the redefinition of a derivative work, but that's a separate issue. My definition of freedom means that every individual has the right to their own One True Philosophy, whatever that may be.
Wanna write your software in the nude as in publicly? Be my guest. Wanna write code for Dept. Etc, etc. The GPL is a mistake for software development.
I don't mean that just because of what I said above. It's a mistake because of its infectious nature. Whether or not you or I agree or any reason, it doesn't matter , you must comply.
Like a Borg drone, with no freedom. With a non-copyleft licence, any library will still be useful no matter the licence of the software it's linked to well, except the aforementioned GPL-ed code. Written on my Kubuntu workstation. Don't be a bee protesting against honey. As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from.
My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me.
The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest. In fact, we like it. We just happen to like FreeBSD more. Although both are similar on the surface, under the hood they are two very different operating systems.
Lineage isn't everything, however. We're not claiming to have performed professional benchmarking tests--however, running the same versions of the same applications on each system demonstrated a considerable performance advantage of FreeBSD over the Linux distros we tried. There are also usage variations--FreeBSD just "feels" nicer than Linux when we use and administer it.
Yet - I need to use some of those bloated unvetted applications on occasion. I end up with a very bare bones setup, which FreeBSD easily provides, for using the internet, and another system with bells, whistles and bloat, but that doesn't connect to the internet. The framebuffer approach may come with unknown security risks that I don't know , and there is a root priviledge issue to be worked out which is why I wouldn't recommend it yet.
Check that! But - might it be easier to evaluate these two or three or four or five ports versus evaluating dozens or hundreds of them? Opinions vary. One more thing I haven't done is to find some clean way to perform root priviledge revocations for these types of low level apps framebuffer, SDL, etc.
In the meantime, I wouldn't suggest that others follow my path. I don't normally answer these questions but I'm bored waiting for the ball game to start. Someone approached me with an idea for the web, back in I had no interest in internet stuff then but this got me excited. I called my wife's sister's daughter's husband, who managed a large Microsoft shop for advice. He supplied me with a bunch of stuff to get going with ASP. We spent about 10 months working on it until Microsoft upgraded.
NET from version 1. The guy who was helping us advised us to dump Microsoft altogether and switch to Linux. I tinkered with FreeBSD before but had trouble installing it. I tried to buy an IRIX system but was turned off by the sales guy cause I wasn't going to spend a few million dollars.
Doing some more research led me back to FreeBSD and was more interested that its roots were in the original Unix where Linux had its roots with a college kid. The documentation and understanding just flowed through my veins in a way nothing else ever did.
We rewrote all our code for FreeBSD in three months and have never touched a Microsoft product since. Honestly when it comes to web servers, even Microsoft doesn't use Microsoft products half the time. I've run FreeBSD since version 5. It is an elegant, mature OS, that is secure, and stable.
I'm a huge fan of the ample documentation available for FreeBSD users. The Handbook is first rate! Last edited: Nov 7, I just wanted software that was free and open to study. The biggest reasons was so I could just use it when and where I wanted.
No key codes or activation. Money was not as much the problem but paying less or nothing of course is great. It encouraged me instead to spend my time contributing rather than playing. I was was seeking more reliability and a focus on quality engineering perhaps. Less hype. I guess if I had to claim any reasons why I was so eager to abandon Linux it would be.. Virtual Memory Pulseaudio Of course systemd The first is that Linux virtual memory seems to just work badly for me.
A common problem was accidentally opening "one too many" images in Gimp would cause a system lockup until swap filled and then crashed. It would be impossible to close programs or interact with a terminal. I do not have this issue on FreeBSD, on which swap is welcome. While I am away from home the system can swap out my unused desktop programs to increase disk cache.
The last two are related. I am not a violent blind hater of the software or developer in question. Both have had many real world practical reasons for me to avoid them, and both seem to be impossible to avoid on Linux. If you want to better understand the difference between FreeBSD jails and Linux containers, read the blog post Setting the Record Straight: containers vs.
Zones vs. Jails vs. FreeBSD has the iocage tool that has been designed to simplify jail management tasks. Bastille is an open-source system for automating deployment and management of containerized applications on FreeBSD. Bastille uses FreeBSD jails as a container platform and adds template automation to create a Docker-like collection of containerized software. Templates take care of installing, configuring, enabling, and starting the software, providing an automated way of building containerized stacks.
Capsicum for FreeBSD is the reference implementation, and serves not only as a reference for Capsicum APIs and semantics, but also provides starting-point source code for ports to other platforms e. DTrace is a comprehensive dynamic tracing framework ported from Solaris.
DTrace provides a powerful infrastructure that permits administrators, developers, and service personnel to concisely answer arbitrary questions about the behavior of the operating system and user programs.
DTrace can provide a global overview of a running system, such as the amount of memory, CPU time, filesystem and network resources used by the active processes. DTrace can also provide fine-grained information, such as a log of the arguments with which a specific function is being called, or a list of the processes accessing a specific file. There is also an interesting discussion with many relevant comments on Hacker News about DTrace for Linux.
Current development efforts aim at widening support for other operating systems for the x architecture. UG support was introduced with Intel's Westmere micro-architecture.
Since FreeBSD 5. Features such as pfsync and CARP for failover and redundancy, authpf for session authentication, and ftp-proxy to ease firewalling the difficult FTP protocol, have also extended PF.
One of the many innovative features is PF's logging. PF's logging is configurable per rule within the pf. Logs may be monitored using standard utilities such as tcpdump. It consists of several components: the kernel firewall filter rule processor and its integrated packet accounting facility, the logging facility, NAT, the dummynet traffic shaper, a forward facility, a bridge facility, and an ipstealth facility. IPFW provides a powerful syntax which advanced users can use to craft customized rulesets that meet the security requirements of a given environment.
IPF is a kernel-side firewall and NAT mechanism that can be controlled and monitored by userland programs. Firewall rules can be set or deleted using ipf , NAT rules can be set or deleted using ipnat , run-time statistics for the kernel parts of IPF can be printed using ipfstat , and ipmon can be used to log IPF actions to the system log files. IPF was originally written using a rule processing logic of "the last matching rule wins" and only used stateless rules.
Since then, IPF has been enhanced to include the quick and keep state options. FreeBSD has over five hundred system variables that can be read and set using the sysctl utility. These system variables can be used to make changes to a running FreeBSD system. It provides a standardized way to access storage layers. A number of modules are already available, and new ones are always in active development by various FreeBSD developers. Each module has both consumers and providers. A provider is the source of the GEOM module, often a physical hard drive but sometimes a virtualized disk such as a memory disk.
The geom module in turn provides an output device. Other GEOM modules, called consumers, can use this provider to create a chain of modules connected to each other. FreeBSD provides binary compatibility with Linux. This allows users to install and run many Linux binaries on a FreeBSD system without having to first modify the binary. For example, Linux binaries will not work on FreeBSD if they overly use i specific calls, such as enabling virtual mode.
FreeBSD includes support for security event auditing. Event auditing supports reliable, fine-grained, and configurable logging of a variety of security-relevant system events, including logins, configuration changes, and file and network access. These log records can be invaluable for live system monitoring, intrusion detection, and postmortem analysis.
0コメント