 | BSD | 360 Members |
| Talk/Chat/Discuss about all BSD Operating Systems. Forum: https://www.unitedbsd.com | 50 Servers |
| BSD | 360 Members |
| Talk/Chat/Discuss about all BSD Operating Systems. Forum: https://www.unitedbsd.com | 50 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 30 Oct 2024 | ||
 Jaypatelani🚩 | In reply to @js:nil.imThanks for the information :) | 13:14:33 |
| 31 Oct 2024 | ||
 R.L. Dane |  Download clipboard.png | 16:55:01 |
| R.L. Dane | Forgive me if you folks have already seen this. I just saw it now and thought it was hilarious. | 16:55:02 |
| 1 Nov 2024 | ||
 Jay | In reply to @alphanine:matrix.org😂 | 02:51:27 |
 L. Piekhanov | y'all thoughts about the BSD license? | 03:30:03 |
| L. Piekhanov | In reply to @alphanine:matrix.orgLol | 03:28:31 |
| L. Piekhanov | In reply to @alphanine:matrix.orgClassic | 03:29:09 |
| Jaypatelani🚩 | In reply to @alphanine:matrix.orgThe thing is even with a GPLv3 license they won't donate more if they don't want to. | 06:28:54 |
| Jaypatelani🚩 | https://kftray.app/blog/posts/9-oss-legos | 06:31:50 |
 unsungNovelty | In reply to PiekhaBSD license is more permissive in the sense that it is one of the licenses that gives you maximum freedom. While the copyleft license forces you to open source. The interesting by product is BSDs has less corporate interference because it is permissive. FreeBSD for example is not getting interfered cos the companies can take whatever they want and do whatever. Apple, Playstation all can take whatever and do nothing. The other side is Linux where since all the code needs to be open source. So there is Linux Foundation run by corporations. Zero voice on the direction for an individual. So licenses totally depends on your project and what you want to do with it. | 07:16:56 |
| Jaypatelani🚩 | Linux foundation is run or nudged by corporation because they don't go full copy left like all OS +kernel GPLv3 or parity license | 07:29:19 |
| unsungNovelty | In reply to @Jaypatelani:matrix.orgI am not sure what you mean by this. Could you please clarify how that would change things? Also its run by corporates. Not nudged. Its a Non-profit 501(c)(6) registered in the US. This is for business leagues. It operates for the foundation members. Not for the public or for charity. LF pays Linus's salary as well. | 07:35:28 |
 ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | FSF and Stallman are of no fault and everything is to blame Linus and LF | 08:10:40 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | Even Stallman is also abused by Linus and LF | 08:12:53 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | In reply to unsungNoveltyCDDL behind ZFS is also a permissive licence but on Linux has to be run thru DKMS or FUSE, no direct Linux kernel support due to an LF claim of infringence | 08:07:26 |
| unsungNovelty | I wrote about the most important political side other than the license itself (IMO ofcourse) a while ago. I think this tells why a license was picked when it comes to big OSS projects which we depend on. https://www.unsungnovelty.org/posts/05/2023/open-source-projects-and-non-profit-501c3-vs-non-profit-501c6/ | 09:35:58 |
| unsungNovelty | In reply to ✝️🌞😎 HD ScaniaThat is not what am saying at all. Am saying license should depend on your project. This whole Permissive vs Copyleft - which is the best thought process is not right. There are genuine reasons to use both. Also, I said the above example because people often dont understand this. Using permissive license is often touted as stupidity by OSS folks. Especially wrt to FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Mind you, OpenBSD almost got shutdown because of this. They are not giving back to the OSS community sentiment. And Linux is shown as an example of how we forced corps to work with OSS ecosystem. But it is actually the other way around. What happened is Linux Foundation by big corps decide how Linux goes. This is in contrast to FreeBSD with it's mere resources is investing directly on desktop. All of the GUI and desktop stuff is majorily by community. Linux Foundation doesn't give a damn about it. This is why Linus said Valve could save Linux Desktop. Cos when it comes to Linux, either some corporation does things or community does. Rich LF doesn't do anything other than corp interests. | 09:34:13 |
| unsungNovelty | Oh. Like that. No. I wasn't spamming with Linux parts. I was sharing a different side to using copyleft licenses is all. Since linux is one of the biggest examples of it, I was just sharing observations. | 10:00:32 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | Linux kernels just aren’t of a matter to us | 09:57:07 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | FSF and Stallman also have entirely failed me as of my practice of AI and ZFS | 09:58:06 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | I’m pro AI but FSF and Stallman are against AI | 09:59:10 |
| unsungNovelty | Nope. I said Linux is run by LF. And that LF pays the Linus torvald's salary. Which are both true. | 09:50:29 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | I also run PID1 of runit on Artix | 09:55:47 |
| unsungNovelty | OK? :) Am not sure what to reply to this. Topic changed. | 09:56:38 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | LF only runs Linux kernels and systemd but not other Linux components, and pays a wage to Linus Torvalds | 09:51:42 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | I’m entirely disinterested in Linux kernels dev but only interested in AI artisanism | 09:55:04 |
| unsungNovelty | Agreed. I am not in disagreement with you on this. | 09:52:24 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | In reply to unsungNoveltyAnd due to what you told LF and Linus are abusing the licences | 09:49:40 |
| unsungNovelty | In reply to ✝️🌞😎 HD ScaniaFor what it's worth. I think FSF, RMS and Software Conservancy failed us. | 09:57:12 |
| ✝️🌞😎 HD Scania | Also to blame LF (not just GPL) which yes ... They are indeed an abuse of the licences | 10:08:19 |