Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/02/2013 04:25 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:33:30 -0500 > Mark Woodward wrote: > >> If you want to use GPL code, you can do *anything* *you* want with >> it. > No, I cannot. The GPL binds software to itself. It is in this way that > GPL projects like the Linux kernel have taken from BSD without giving > anything back. They can't. Derivatives of GPL software are themselves > GPL software. Accepting code from the Linux kernel back into BSD would > turn the entire BSD tree into GPL software. The various BSD projects > refuse to accept the terms of the GPL. > > Forcing someone to accept unwanted license terms in order to share in, > and benefit from, open source software development is not "freedom". It > is a denial of freedom. And as you quote: > > "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves" > --Abraham Lincoln. > > Neither of us are right or wrong. We have different perspectives. > The Linux kernel is not a derivative of the BSD kernel. While there may now be pieces taken from BSD, initially the Linux kernel was written from scratch. Possibly with some pulution from Minix. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/02/2013 07:59 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:57:39 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: The BSD license has allowed a great deal of software to be subverted to the detriment of the various BSD projects. This is a perfect example of how the BSD license does not protect your freedom. Granted in an ironic way. Such as how the Linux kernel "borrowed" a bunch of *BSD device drivers for its own use without contributing improvements back to the *BSD kernel projects? Talk about irony. Well, very little has been "borrowed" from the BSD kernel. I think mostly just the TCP stack, but that was mostly government funded, so that doesn't concern me too much. What about Linux threads on BSD? Meanwhile Apple, the biggest *BSD shop in the world, has contributed most of its *BSD changes back to the BSD kernel communities and most of its KHTML changes back to the KDE community and everyone who uses WebKit. A the same time, Apple was forced to stop contributing to GCC and dump it, along with Samba, due to the "fuck TiVo" clause in the GPLv3. You are stating subjective opinion as fact and as such is not a debatable point. However, what was actually done by Tivo was against the spirit of the GPL and the FSF was more than justified. The spirit of the GPL is that the writers give their software to the users NOT the distributors. That is an important consideration. It is only when the distributors act counter to the user's do they violate the GPL. Tivo made the source code unusable because of intentional hardware choices. They were violating the user's rights, and that, if you have any integrity at all, must agree is actionable. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. A software author chooses the GPL to protect the users of his software. If you want to modify or use GPL code, that was not originally written by you, then you must abide by the GPL by which you acquired the software. Derivatives of GPL software are GPL software. This is a requirement of the GPL. Thus, while the Linux kernel can take code from the FreeBSD kernel just by keeping the BSD License text in that code, the FreeBSD kernel cannot reciprocate without changing the license for the entire FreeBSD code tree. Not to nit pick, but that was the BSD licensor's choice. They made that decision and many corporations take and make changes to BSD code and you never even get to see what they changed. With GPL, you get to see what has changed, how it was changed, and why it was changed. The BSD guys may not be able to cut and paste, they can certainly see what what was done. This is the force being used: accept the GPL for all of your software or you don't get to reap the benefits of collaboration with GPL software projects. That is not force by any stretch of the imagination. It is a choice, nothing more. Who's freedoms are being protected here? Certainly not the FreeBSD developers' or users'. They're stuck between a rock (a software license they don't want) and a hard place (having their code taken from them without the takers giving anything back). I disagree, completely. The freedoms being protected here are (1) The authors of the GPL portions of the code and (2) the down-stream users of the code. The down-stream users of the code are protected from someone who would take the code, modify it, and keep it away from them, and that, as stated, is not a freedom. I am not sympathetic, in ANY WAY, to the plight of BSD cry babies. Companies steal their code on a regular basis and, many times, modify it, ever so slightly, so that it is incompatible with the original code. Remember Kerberos anyone? This is the result of their license and it happens EVERY DAY. At least with GPL, its done out in the open and they get to see what was done and they can choose to re-implement those changes in their code. The only thing that keeps them from using GPL code, is a license, the thing that keeps them from using anything Microsoft, IBM, or Apple do with their code is the fact that the code has been imprisoned and the owners of the code don't even get visitation rights. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
From time to time, we have had speakers on various OpenSource licensing speak at the BLU. The GPL was born because developers were contributing their stuff to the public domain, and some people were grabbing those and copyrighting that code. The original GPL was also referred to as "copyleft". But, there are a lot of issues with all licensing. Take a commercial closed-source project that runs on Linux, but it incorporates some GPL'd code into its product, such as Bison and Flex. The closed-source developer needs to be careful that his code does not become polluted by the GPL, and at the same time he needs to be respectful of the third-party licensing or code that he distributed. For instance, most code on Linux is compiled using some version of GCC. It also uses libraries, like libc that is GPL code. In any case, maybe we can set up a future BLU meeting and get a speaker who can simply explain both GPL as well as other OpenSource licenses like Apache, BSD, and a few others. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:32:27 -0500 Jerry Feldman wrote: > The Linux kernel is not a derivative of the BSD kernel. While there If GPL code is copied into the BSD kernel then according to the GPL that would make the BSD kernel derivative of the upstream GPL software. The GPL requires such derivative software to be licensed under the GPL. On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:34:24 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: > Well, very little has been "borrowed" from the BSD kernel. I think Many of the Linux kernel device drivers were taken from *BSD or are licensed under one of the BSD licenses. There are at least 185 files with BSD licenses on them in the 2.6.32 source tree. That's what I found with a single grep command. I leave it to the reader to grep for the relevant strings in the source tree. > mostly just the TCP stack, but that was mostly government funded, so Linux has had several written from scratch but I'm not aware of it ever using *BSD's stack. I could be mistaken about this. > that doesn't concern me too much. What about Linux threads on BSD? Linuxthreads is a Port. It is not part of the *BSD kernels. > You are stating subjective opinion as fact and as such is not a > debatable point. However, what was actually done by Tivo was against Darwin, the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X and iOS, is XNU+FreeBSD kernel and FreeBSD userspace. This is a fact, not an opinion. iPhone and iPad have put Darwin -- thus FreeBSD -- in the hands of more users around the world than any other Unix vendor has managed. This is a fact, not an opinion. This makes Apple the largest *BSD shop in the world. Apple published all of the Darwin source code less some binary blobs. This is a fact, not an opinion: http://www.opensource.apple.com/ WebKit started out as KHTML and all of that code was contributed back upstream. This is a fact, not an opinion. See above URL. Apple stopped using GPLv3 software because (among other reasons) the FSF declared iPhone incompatible with the GPLv3 due to the cryptographic signature clause. This is a fact, not an opinion. > the spirit of the GPL and the FSF was more than justified. The spirit > of the GPL is that the writers give their software to the users NOT > the distributors. [snip] Not to nit pick but Linus Torvalds disagrees with you. And it's his software, his choice of license, not yours. I think I'm done with this, Mark. I'm not a zealot. I'm a practical realist. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
On 01/03/2013 10:44 AM, Jerry Feldman wrote: From time to time, we have had speakers on various OpenSource licensing speak at the BLU. The GPL was born because developers were contributing their stuff to the public domain, and some people were grabbing those and copyrighting that code. The original GPL was also referred to as "copyleft". But, there are a lot of issues with all licensing. Take a commercial closed-source project that runs on Linux, but it incorporates some GPL'd code into its product, such as Bison and Flex. The closed-source developer needs to be careful that his code does not become polluted by the GPL, and at the same time he needs to be respectful of the third-party licensing or code that he distributed. For instance, most code on Linux is compiled using some version of GCC. It also uses libraries, like libc that is GPL code. In any case, maybe we can set up a future BLU meeting and get a speaker who can simply explain both GPL as well as other OpenSource licenses like Apache, BSD, and a few others. I agree, that would be good as there is a lot of dis-information to be cleared up. However, I grow concerned that we are becoming complacent in advocating freedom. While it is true that Linux has made great strides and it is unlikely that it will be killed off by competition, the freedoms which it is supposed to embody are fading. Everything from DRM to UEFI is a direct assault on digital freedom. As computers become more and more the very conduit of communication and information, there has NEVER been a platform that delivers so utter and complete control to so few. The likes of Apple, Microsoft, and, yes, google not to mention comcast, RIAA, and MPIAA seek to take control of your property and limit what you can see and what you can "remember" and document. A newspaper that documents corruption is useless as historical evidence if the corrupted can erase or re-write the "print" remotely at any time. Similarly, books that can be altered or deleted at any time can not protect freedom in any sense. We need to pick up the torch again for digital freedom and try to get the next generation to understand the problems that we helped create and they must confront. It is scary what is going on in America, the land where corporations are people. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/03/2013 11:14 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:32:27 -0500 Jerry Feldman wrote: The Linux kernel is not a derivative of the BSD kernel. While there If GPL code is copied into the BSD kernel then according to the GPL that would make the BSD kernel derivative of the upstream GPL software. The GPL requires such derivative software to be licensed under the GPL. I don't see a point here. That is the intention of the licenses. So? On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:34:24 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: Well, very little has been "borrowed" from the BSD kernel. I think Many of the Linux kernel device drivers were taken from *BSD or are licensed under one of the BSD licenses. There are at least 185 files with BSD licenses on them in the 2.6.32 source tree. That's what I found with a single grep command. I leave it to the reader to grep for the relevant strings in the source tree. 185 "files?" How many are headers? how many are source files? How many are documents? Compare that against how many files are in the kernel as a whole? What's the ratio? I think "very little" applies here. Also, what is the nature of the copy? Is it an OEM writing a driver for both platforms and contributing to both? It is hard to take a single number as meaning anything without a detailed understanding of what the number represents. mostly just the TCP stack, but that was mostly government funded, so Linux has had several written from scratch but I'm not aware of it ever using *BSD's stack. I could be mistaken about this. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone used the original 'BSD TCP/IP stack as a reference. I know Windows' tcp/ip stack is from BSD. that doesn't concern me too much. What about Linux threads on BSD? Linuxthreads is a Port. It is not part of the *BSD kernels. The point is that it is used on BSD just fine. You are stating subjective opinion as fact and as such is not a debatable point. However, what was actually done by Tivo was against Darwin, the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X and iOS, is XNU+FreeBSD kernel and FreeBSD userspace. This is a fact, not an opinion. This has nothing to do what the tivo argument. Why is it being put up as a defense? iPhone and iPad have put Darwin -- thus FreeBSD -- in the hands of more users around the world than any other Unix vendor has managed. This is a fact, not an opinion. Perhaps, but it also locks users out of their systems, allows Apple to control their property, and allows Apple unprecedented vendor lock-in. In fact, I think Apple is a perfect example about how the MIT license materially harms users. This makes Apple the largest *BSD shop in the world. Yes, and one of the largest violators of user's freedom in the world. A litigious cancer in the technology world. Apple published all of the Darwin source code less some binary blobs. This is a fact, not an opinion: http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Not really. They canceled the darwin project a LONG time ago. WebKit started out as KHTML and all of that code was contributed back upstream. This is a fact, not an opinion. See above URL. Apple stopped using GPLv3 software because (among other reasons) the FSF declared iPhone incompatible with the GPLv3 due to the cryptographic signature clause. This is a fact, not an opinion. Yes, because it harms user's freedom. The freedom to deny freedom is NOT a freedom. the spirit of the GPL and the FSF was more than justified. The spirit of the GPL is that the writers give their software to the users NOT the distributors. [snip] Not to nit pick but Linus Torvalds disagrees with you. And it's his software, his choice of license, not yours. /argumentum ad verecundiam/ I think I'm done with this, Mark. I'm not a zealot. I'm a practical realist. Its funny that the strong defense of freedom has become zealotry, but the promotion of corporate rights over individuals has become "practical." It is, indeed, a scary new century. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
I know what I wrote but I do need to correct two of your factual errors. On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:42:12 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: > I'm pretty sure that almost everyone used the original 'BSD TCP/IP > stack as a reference. I know Windows' tcp/ip stack is from BSD. A common misconception but one that in fact is not true. There are vestiges inherited from Spider's STREAMS stack, notable in the command line tools like ftp and rsh, but the stack itself was written from scratch by Microsoft. > Not really. They canceled the darwin project a LONG time ago. The Darwin sources are there right up to the current release (10.8.2 as of this writing) as are the WebKit sources, the GCC and LLVM sources, and everything else. You'd have known this had you bothered to check the link I provided. The OpenDarwin project was shut down and turned into Mac OS Forge which still hosts the renamed DarwinBuild project. DarwinBuild has been largely supplanted by PureDarwin as a community-driven project. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/03/2013 12:38 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: I know what I wrote but I do need to correct two of your factual errors. On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:42:12 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: I'm pretty sure that almost everyone used the original 'BSD TCP/IP stack as a reference. I know Windows' tcp/ip stack is from BSD. A common misconception but one that in fact is not true. There are vestiges inherited from Spider's STREAMS stack, notable in the command line tools like ftp and rsh, but the stack itself was written from scratch by Microsoft. Well, the DOS version of Windows, windows 1.x through Windows ME, didn't have TCP until Windows 3.1(1) (as winsock). The 386 enhanced version, I'm not sure where that was implemented or by whom. The Windows NT/32 bit OS/2 was taken from BSD. Windows NT on through Windows 8 is based on the NT kernel which looks a hell of a lot like VMS, but that is a different discussion. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:10:27 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: > Well, the DOS version of Windows, windows 1.x through Windows ME, > didn't have TCP until Windows 3.1(1) (as winsock). The 386 enhanced > version, I'm not sure where that was implemented or by whom. Microsoft. It was code named Wolverine. > The Windows NT/32 bit OS/2 was taken from BSD. The TCP/IP stack that shipped with NT 3.1 was based on System V STREAMS, with code licensed from Spider. The TCP/IP stack that shipped with Windows 95 and Windows/NT 3.5 is an updated version of Wolverine. It has been part of Windows 9x and /NT up to the present. The OS/2 TCP/IP stack was written by IBM based on the BSD stack. It might actually be the BSD stack ported to OS/2 but I'm not sure about that. Have any more misconceptions that you need clarified? I got plenty of time to poke holes in your proclamations. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/03/2013 01:56 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:10:27 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: Well, the DOS version of Windows, windows 1.x through Windows ME, didn't have TCP until Windows 3.1(1) (as winsock). The 386 enhanced version, I'm not sure where that was implemented or by whom. Microsoft. It was code named Wolverine. The Windows NT/32 bit OS/2 was taken from BSD. The TCP/IP stack that shipped with NT 3.1 was based on System V STREAMS, with code licensed from Spider. The TCP/IP stack that shipped with Windows 95 and Windows/NT 3.5 is an updated version of Wolverine. It has been part of Windows 9x and /NT up to the present. Here's a few excerpts from an article you may or may not be aware of "Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author." " "I won't even swear on a stack of bibles that the "new" TCP/IP now shipping in NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me is completely free of the old code from Spider. Since I don't work there I don't have access to the source code. Certainly some parts of TCP (the checksum calculation comes to mind) are the same everywhere and once someone has written an optimized version, why rewrite it? And once again, this would be perfectly legitimate for Microsoft to do under the license. " Lastly, this interesting (and telling) quote: "Anyway the FreeBSD programmers who reported all this to the Wall Street Journal can't see the NT TCP/IP source either, so they can't have been referring to that. " This is *exactly* why BSD license is bad. Microsoft didn't copy the BSD stack, Spider did. The intellectual property rights in this case is a mess. Certainly there have been code drift from initial port, but the BSD license, allowing corporations to hide code that other people wrote, will keep this debate from being settled. I argue that it is more BSD than not, and you argue that it is not based on BSD. I wish we could look at the code to settle the argument. Oh! wait, we can't because the BSD license lets microsoft hide the code that doesn't belong to it. The OS/2 TCP/IP stack was written by IBM based on the BSD stack. It might actually be the BSD stack ported to OS/2 but I'm not sure about that. Have any more misconceptions that you need clarified? I got plenty of time to poke holes in your proclamations. Thanks, but, I have worked closely with Microsoft since the early DOS and OS/2 1.x days. I've had many business trips to Redmond while working on system level components from Windows 2.x, 3.x NT, OS/2 1.x and Portable OS/2 which became Windows NT. I Saw the OS/2 presentation manager running on the NT kernel before it was known as the NT kernel. I've published a couple articles on Windows (NT and DOS) device driver development and contributed a couple chapters to "Windows of the 3.1 Masters." I consulted with Sun for Java on Windows NT for medical applications, Dragon naturally Speaking for performance on NT, when Keithley Metrabyte was writing their own drivers, I designed the Windows (95/NT) portable infrastructure. I was also the architect of the Windows implementation of Microsoft's original "Microsoft Home" "Creative Writer" and "Fine Artist" products while at Turning Point. I think I have it covered. I work on Linux, because I prefer Linux. That does not imply that I do not know Windows. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:40:31 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: > "Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the > TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. I've seen that article. It is mistaken. Spider couldn't have taken the STREAMS API from BSD because BSD doesn't have a STREAMS API. Spider's code is AT&T System V, not BSD. Care to try again? :) -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/03/2013 03:35 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:40:31 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: "Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. I've seen that article. It is mistaken. Spider couldn't have taken the STREAMS API from BSD because BSD doesn't have a STREAMS API. Spider's code is AT&T System V, not BSD. We are now arguing unprovable minutia. Since all the code is obsolete and far out of any reach to verification, we have only the documents we can dig up to prove our points. I'll trust the contents of a wall street journal article, an interview with a former NT kernel developer, and my own personal experiences. Whether or not this small matter of trivia is correct or not is irrelevant. This debate is about freedom and the GPL, which, I'm pretty sure we've concluded you've lost. Even these finer points of history are blurred because the GPL was not being used. Had the BSD code base been GPL we could have proved all of this because vendors would have had to contribute back their changes to the GPL authors. Furthermore, we would probably have avoided the whole AT&T/Berkeley mess in the '90s. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
I have a new software project, and don't know which license to use. The first thing to point out is that the project is minor and few will ever care about it. The consequences of choosing a different license are trivial. My decision was between Apache 2.0 and GPLv3. I had read that the Apache 2.0 was like an upgrade to a BSD license. One of my targets for the software is an Android phone. I went with the Android crowd which appears to have much of their software licensed under Apache. The project is purely academic. I cannot see a way to turn a buck on the software (bummer for me). If you had the choice, which of those two licenses would you choose and why? You may get me to change my mind. Doug http://pypi.python.org/pypi/QProcessing/0.3.3 Visual Physics App to see the math of Nature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
On 01/03/2013 04:02 PM, Doug wrote: I have a new software project, and don't know which license to use. The first thing to point out is that the project is minor and few will ever care about it. The consequences of choosing a different license are trivial. My decision was between Apache 2.0 and GPLv3. I had read that the Apache 2.0 was like an upgrade to a BSD license. One of my targets for the software is an Android phone. I went with the Android crowd which appears to have much of their software licensed under Apache. The project is purely academic. I cannot see a way to turn a buck on the software (bummer for me). If you had the choice, which of those two licenses would you choose and why? You may get me to change my mind. If you want your project to be able to get the widest possible use, then use BSD/Apache. As someone who does a lot of prototyping / throwaway projects, I heavily favor BSD over GPL when I'm looking for support libraries. It's less book-keeping I have to do if anyone wants to take my stuff and do some productization (i.e., if I use GPL libraries, I have to be careful about where they're used so that they don't sneak in and contaminate other things). If it bugs you that someone else might take parts of your project and incorporate that into a proprietary project, use GPL. Your project will only be usable in a small subset of applications (even with respect to the world of "open source"). But you will have the satisfaction of knowing that no one is free-riding. That's really the crux of it I think. HTH, Matt ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
hi On 1/3/13 16:02 , Doug wrote: If you had the choice, which of those two licenses would you choose and why? well, you have to decide what do you want the license to do for you. if your goals for the code are in anyway aligned with stallman's 4 freedoms: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html then the GPL is the way to go. on the other hand, if you are interested in making it as easy as possible for other people or business entities to use your code however they like, you could use BSD/Apache; but also consider putting it in the public domain [esp. as you say there is no money to be made]. -- \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] : i am alive ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:54:57 -0500
Mark Woodward wrote:
> We are now arguing unprovable minutia.
BSD has sockets; SysV has STREAMS. The architectural designs are
very different. This isn't unprovable minutia; it's a fundamental
difference between the two major UNIX families.
> Since all the code is obsolete and far out of any reach to
> verification, we have only the documents we can dig up to prove our
> points.
The 4.{234}BSD source files are still around and you can download them
and see for yourself. Copies of the BSD releases are maintained by the
UNIX Heritage Society. They also have archives of a lot of other
UNIXes. The 4BSD sourceforge project bundles the *BSD releases with
emulators to make them runable on contemporary hardware.
Obsolete perhaps, but hardly "far out of any reach".
> I'll trust the contents of a wall street journal article, an
> interview with a former NT kernel developer, and my own personal
> experiences.
You... you go do that.
--
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] OSS licenses
My snarky take on some of the major choices: GPL v2 or v3: You choose to use this license when you want to use your software to make a political statement. Sun CDDL: You choose to use this license when you want to flip the bird at the FSF. Mozilla MPL: You choose to use this license when you want to be subtle about flipping the bird at the FSF. BSD 2-clause and related: You choose to use this license when you don't care who uses your software or how they do it as long as you get credit for it. Public domain: Not a license at all but a forfeiture of all rights to the work. You choose this option when you don't really care about any of the above, or you choose this option when you want to make a statement against copyright, copyleft and software licenses. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On 01/03/2013 03:35 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:40:31 -0500 > Mark Woodward wrote: > >> "Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the >> TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. > I've seen that article. It is mistaken. Spider couldn't have taken the > STREAMS API from BSD because BSD doesn't have a STREAMS API. Spider's > code is AT&T System V, not BSD. > > Care to try again? :) > One question, is that Spider Boardman? -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Home NAS redux
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:09:51 -0500 Jerry Feldman wrote: > One question, is that Spider Boardman? No. It's Spider Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Systems -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[Discuss] When should a new thread be initiated?
Not talking about process threads, just wondering when a discussion thread is so off-topic that it should be renamed and promoted to a new high level thread. Not that there is a current discussion in that category :-) -- Jerry Natowitz ===>j.natowitz (at) gmail.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] When should a new thread be initiated?
Or at least change the subject lone? -derek Sent from my HTC smartphone - Reply message - From: "Jerry Natowitz" To: "blu" Subject: [Discuss] When should a new thread be initiated? Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 7:19 PM Not talking about process threads, just wondering when a discussion thread is so off-topic that it should be renamed and promoted to a new high level thread. Not that there is a current discussion in that category :-) -- Jerry Natowitz ===>j.natowitz (at) gmail.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] When should a new thread be initiated?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:19:02 -0500 Jerry Natowitz wrote: > Not talking about process threads, just wondering when a discussion > thread is so off-topic that it should be renamed and promoted to a > new high level thread. Tom tried to do that with the OSS licenses thread. I followed it but then got sucked back into the NAS thread and neglected to fix the Subject again. Sorry about that. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
