Small team is trying to hard fork a whole operating system and improve it. It will end up as yet another GNU Hurd - toy project without any practical use. Whats even worse they intend to GPL3 their code, so even the potentially useful code they create will remain useless for general public as it wont be possible to port it back to *BSD due to license conflict.
Ayup, it would have far better if these folks joined up with Theo and actually helped with OpenBSD instead of just mooching off it for their own bent agenda.
Small team is trying to hard fork a whole operating system and improve it. It will end up as yet another GNU Hurd - toy project without any practical use. Whats even worse they intend to GPL3 their code, so even the potentially useful code they create will remain useless for general public as it wont be possible to port it back to *BSD due to license conflict.
Which is why some people really hate the GPL, because GPL fanatics always complain "but someone can steal your code!", yet completely ignoring the fac
Which is why some people really hate the GPL, because GPL fanatics always complain "but someone can steal your code!", yet completely ignoring the fact the GPL does exactly the same thing. GPL'd projects take code from BSD all the time, and yet none of it flows back, because the GPL has pretty much made it "proprietary" to the BSD crowd.
Which is why everyone ahtes the BSD crowd, because they'll say "Our stuff is so free you can take it and never contribute back to us and we're totally OK with that", and the GPL people respond "OK, sure, well we'd rather the code remain free, so we'll take it and keep it Free Software but make our changes unavailable under the same lice..." and the BSD people are all "HOW DARE YOU take our stuff and never contribute back to us, we're totally not OK with that."
I mean, pick a position guys, either be for letting other people use your code even if you never get to use their changes, or be against it. Stop being only in favor of people taking your code if the people taking it refuse to share with anyone at all, because that's a ridiculous position.
BSD is like liberals saying "raise your children how you want" and GPL comes along and is like "we don't want to vaccinate our children", then BSD gets all mad.
> The GPL is superior because it prevents making code proprietary and "locked up". Yet it does a lot of "locking up" itself.
No it does not, the GPL 3 allows relicensing to AGPL-3 which has more restrictions, hence you can't merge it back into a GPL-ed code base.
Why would forking mean any more work than you want?
The base system won't care.
I can run a fork all on my own, in my spare time. The weekly routine (mostly automated) goes like this: 1. Update my fork with all the changes from the original. 2. Apply my patches. 3. For those that fail, and specifically the lines that fail, do the changes manually and then do a diff to get a new complete patch. 4. Maybe code a bit on my own parts, to add a feature or fix a bug. 5. Commit/
They intend to improve security, remove "tainted" dependencies ("E.g. (PulseAudio / SystemD / Rust / Java as forced dependencies)"). This definitely doesn't look like a small fork with minimal patching but more like a serious rewrite. They even clearly state "we are planning on implementing a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations.".
They want to use GPL3 licensed code. This means that they can't use Linux modules that don't have that "any future version" line in the license.
If you want to know what's allowed, anything that's allowed by the GPL3 license will be allowed. And possibly a few things that aren't, but which only use subsystems, but don't depend on that.
This is no problem for me, as I prefer the AGPL3 license, and the difference from GPL3 rights isn't something that affects my work. But if you're planning to take it, repack
Our country has plenty of good five-cent cigars, but the trouble is
they charge fifteen cents for them.
hopeless (Score:2)
Small team is trying to hard fork a whole operating system and improve it. It will end up as yet another GNU Hurd - toy project without any practical use. Whats even worse they intend to GPL3 their code, so even the potentially useful code they create will remain useless for general public as it wont be possible to port it back to *BSD due to license conflict.
Re: hopeless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why some people really hate the GPL, because GPL fanatics always complain "but someone can steal your code!", yet completely ignoring the fac
Re:hopeless (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why everyone ahtes the BSD crowd, because they'll say "Our stuff is so free you can take it and never contribute back to us and we're totally OK with that", and the GPL people respond "OK, sure, well we'd rather the code remain free, so we'll take it and keep it Free Software but make our changes unavailable under the same lice..." and the BSD people are all "HOW DARE YOU take our stuff and never contribute back to us, we're totally not OK with that."
I mean, pick a position guys, either be for letting other people use your code even if you never get to use their changes, or be against it. Stop being only in favor of people taking your code if the people taking it refuse to share with anyone at all, because that's a ridiculous position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get forking, do you? (Score:2)
The smallest fork is ... a pure name change.
Why would forking mean any more work than you want?
The base system won't care.
I can run a fork all on my own, in my spare time. The weekly routine (mostly automated) goes like this:
1. Update my fork with all the changes from the original.
2. Apply my patches.
3. For those that fail, and specifically the lines that fail, do the changes manually and then do a diff to get a new complete patch.
4. Maybe code a bit on my own parts, to add a feature or fix a bug.
5. Commit/
Re: (Score:2)
They intend to improve security, remove "tainted" dependencies ("E.g. (PulseAudio / SystemD / Rust / Java as forced dependencies)"). This definitely doesn't look like a small fork with minimal patching but more like a serious rewrite. They even clearly state "we are planning on implementing a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations.".
Re: (Score:2)
They want to use GPL3 licensed code. This means that they can't use Linux modules that don't have that "any future version" line in the license.
If you want to know what's allowed, anything that's allowed by the GPL3 license will be allowed. And possibly a few things that aren't, but which only use subsystems, but don't depend on that.
This is no problem for me, as I prefer the AGPL3 license, and the difference from GPL3 rights isn't something that affects my work. But if you're planning to take it, repack