The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.
A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.
In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
A project could compromise by entering into NDA agreements with vendors, or including binary objects in the operating system for which no source code exists
Agreed.
I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that. Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?
I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that
Blobs that are redistributable is still included. The 0x things are redistributable under BSD 3 clause license, with an additional clause prohibiting reverse engineering
Which is much free than the gpl
Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?
Copyleft means FOSS that can only be used as FOSS. Any changes made need to be published etc. Blobs are not even FOSS, so they can only be implemented as Linux is not FOSS.
with an additional clause prohibiting reverse engineering
What does that mean? You can redistribute binary code that is not Open source, and you are also not allowed to find the source code? How is that free?
I think you shouldn’t argue on why bsd use the bsd license because no one would care, and I will stop here
We should focus on learning and programming, just like Vietnamese these day should be good on Marxism-Leninism that’s taught in the university/college to have the right mindset and should’t care about anarchism, liberalism, etc and focus on whatever science to help the country.
What does that mean? You can redistribute binary code that is not Open source, and you are also not allowed to find the source code? How is that free?
You can redistribute binary code that is not Open source under a free license
there isn’t a problem making OpenBSD nonfree in their opinion, the only problem is they cannot fix the binary code if it have bugs and “can’t confirm if the blob contain malware”
Blobs are not even FOSS, so they can only be implemented as Linux is not FOSS.
They can exist side by side with linux (like you install gcc and openssh on your linux). I saw microcode are packaged, not installed by default (about arch linux)
If they are linked against linux they must be gpl
Can you read the gpl or that’s just long and right and everyone must use it to support GNU
using a license that promote giving code back (put restriction on redistribution) for coreutils, gcc, libc, etc… has borned Chimera Linux (which point out the quality problem of GNU (in code!) by using BSD userland and LLVM and musl)
A project has no point if it doesn’t have goals. Thankfully, the NetBSD Project has enough goals to keep it busy for quite some time. Generally speaking, the NetBSD Project:
<span style="color:#323232;">provides a well designed, stable, and fast BSD system,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">avoids encumbering licenses,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">provides a portable system, which runs on many hardware platforms,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">interoperates well with other systems,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">conforms to open systems standards as much as is practical.
</span>
In summary: The NetBSD Project provides a freely available and redistributable system that professionals, hobbyists, and researchers can use in whatever manner they wish.
Based on the name of have assumed it’s be used in things like network appliances but in 20 years I’ve never seen a single device use it.
The name comes from being develop over the internet, when that was still a pretty new concept. It’s pretty popular among Japanese ISP’s iirc.
If you’re at all interested in unix, you should try NetBSD. Open has security as a focus…although some of that is overstated imo. FreeBSD is clearly targeting servers, even if it is all purpose.
NetBSD is less popular, but it’s clean, lightweight, portable, has pkgsrc. Think of Net as a cross between Open and Free.
There’s no specific point in any of *BSD. They all are general purpose OSes. NetBSD forked from FreeBSD, OpenBSD forked from NetBSD. Conflicts between developers were main reasons for that.
They evolve differently. Saying *BSD is like 4.4BSD is still developed by ucb to provide a single base for all BSD.
Michael W Lucas wrote in Absolute FreeBSD (3rd):
Absolute BSD (No Starch Press, 2002) was my first technology book and was written when the various BSD operating system had more in common than they wanted to admit. The second edition, Absolute FreeBSD (No Starch Press, 2007), came out after the BSDs had diverged, and detailed FreeBSD’s advances in the previous five year
There are some BSD communities on Lemmy/kbin, but they don't have many subscribers yet.
Here are the ones I know of: @openbsd @openbsd @bsd @netbsd @bsd @freebsd @freebsd @netbsd @bsd @freebsd @FreeBSD
you’re more likely to find BSD communities on reddit, each projects mailing lists, freebsd forums, and unitedbsd.com (which is a great forum, although not too active).
According to the wiki, ZFS “works well” but doesn’t seem to be as stable as in FreeBSD or OpenIndiana, and is not enabled by default so you have to update your rc.conf file to build the ZFS drivers.
If you look at the supported platforms you kind of get an answer here. There’s support for the m68k Macintoshes and other similar ancient devices still.