Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 6:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart Silverstrim Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:45 AM To: Josh Ockert Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt Subject: Re: Demon license? FreeBSD doesn't need strings attached via corporate entanglements, in my opinion. FreeBSD already has entangling corporate strings - Apple is one of the entanglers for example. But, interestingly enough, none of those people are complaining about this issue. As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. when it comes to free-source operating systems, it is a geek's party and the market promoters are the crashers. Hear hear! Why is the concept so hard for people to understand that open source projects aren't necessarily out to displace Windows or take over the world...that they were spawned by a desire to scratch an itch or make something that's good and fills a need. There are those who create things with some motivation to purely outdo Windows, no doubt...but for the most part it's just made to be made, without obligations? If the product works for you, you're allowed to use it. Use FreeBSD. Use GPL tools, use the Linux kernel to build a better distro, whatever. But why must people be driven to take these projects to start dancing with corporate sponsors and cash?? If you want to do that, do it the way Linux has...start a corporation using that product as the basis, and approach the businesses you're interested in courting, and leave the core project alone. Businesses aren't interested in the core Linux kernel necessarily...they work with a corporation that uses it. The corporation gives a point of contact, a point of support, a face to work with. If it goes out of business it's a case of touch noogies...the actual project itself isn't bothered one way or the other and is still available on the Internet for free with people spending their free time working on it as a hobby. *sigh* Not that it really matters in the end...que sera, sera, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. Just as an aside: Apple does push code back as far as I know. There was talk last year for example about MSDOS FS support being put back in from Apple Darwin. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam:****, RE: Demon license?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: As I understand it Apple is using some of the code from FreeBSD, but FreeBSD isn't necessarily *getting* anything as an obligation from them. Ideally, if businesses give to them, that's a bonus. Businesses have always been able to take from FreeBSD as per it's license without giving anything. But when you start doing tit-for-tat scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours relationships with businesses, there's going to be problems. Just as an aside: Apple does push code back as far as I know. There was talk last year for example about MSDOS FS support being put back in from Apple Darwin. Yes, I believe they do. What I'm saying (and what I think a great number of people don't think about) is that they're doing this but aren't *obligated* to do so. For FreeBSD, as I understand it, you can take FreeBSD, slap new images to it and alter some of the code and sell it as your own (except for copyright notices? That may have changed). There you go...you have a new product, the *BSD people don't care. You don't have to do anything for the FreeBSD team in return. If you do, they'd probably appreciate it. If you don't, well, life goes on. I'm against the slide into an obligatory relationship...FreeBSD starts marketing and courting a couple corporate friends and then there may be some obligation back and forth...forcing certain device support, or maybe some encouragement to ignore other vendors, introduce more politics. As the whole logoscot affair shows I think there's enough politics in the group and userbase as it stands. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
