Software Licenses

Let's talk licenses, Holla Forums.
I've been theorizing why a FOSS enthusiast might use a BSD variant over Linux. It dawned on me that the BSD crowd probably doesn't have any specific complaints in the functionality of Linux. I take it that BSD users simply have a particular dislike in the license that Linux is released under?
Is there any license you prefer? Why?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

BipCot NoGov license
Because it's not FOSS enough for OSI, and makes both BSDMs and GiNdUs assmad.

But they do:

is there a license like GPL but you can't be a jew?

Muh Radeon drivers. Citation not required at least for me.

Apache v2? Maybe.

public domain

like you cant sell software with a pricetag bceuse i fucking hate jews

That would make the software proprietary and not open source.

mentioning jews in your posts doesn't make your lack of knowledge about licenses seem less retarded

You could sell the software on disc and have the disc wrapped in bacon.

...

...

here is a red pill for you

GPL and BSD are both free software licenses.

the fight between them is entirely a wedge issue created to make free software people fight among themselves to hold them back from getting good work done.

ok fuck you jew

Serious question:
If you were a scheming jew, what flaws would you find in the "Do What the Fuck You Want" license?

use copyleft-next

You can use it for anything you want. You can put it in your proprietary software without telling anyone where you got it or giving them the source code. It leaves open all kinds of abuse.

So... what's the point of a "don't do evil shit" license?
If an evil motherfucker already has the source, they're evil, why are they going to care what the license says?
I just don't really understand why this licensing this is such a big deal.

If you find out they're using your source code (if they use enough of it that isn't hard) you can sue them and/or force them to release their own source code and modifications to comply with the license.

Well that's reasonable, then.

It's like social (((justice))). License discarded.

take your homosexual lisp quotes back to the containment board they originated from please

Linux's namespaces ("containers" for you faggot webdevs) are more powerful than BSD's equiv. as they are lightweight and useful for far more than security. I use them on our networking product for some tricky routing as well as in our automated test framework. pf and iptables are equally shit when you try to do anything complicated with them, not sure why that even gets brought up - wasn't until pfsense I'd even heard anyone try to make that argument. QoS is practically non-existent on BSDs as are most new protocols. The main draw is the license for companies that don't want to expose their kernel hacks.

My default go-to is the GNU GPLv3 or AGPL
because those are the ones that try as hard as possible to make sure that software users are free in practice.

There are lots of people and companies who don't give a damn about the freedom talk, they just see this "open sauce" thing as a good leverage to make profit. Requiring them to give freedom to their users really pisses them off

point in question:

Apple loves leveraging BSD software to assemble a proprietary operating system.

Jewgle is very happy to use Linux and shit to build cheap products and Google's own tech infraestructure, but they have a BAN on AGPL software inside their company because they don't like the idea of not being able to use SaaSS as a business model. Indeed, luring retards into using SaaSS like GMail and Google Docs is a big part of their business model

This. The only answer that should matter.

iptables is obsolete and so is the argument of anyone claiming BSD is better because of it.
#!/sbin/nft -fflush rulesettable inet filter { chain input { type filter hook input priority 0 policy drop meta iif lo accept ct state related,established accept ip protocol icmp accept ip6 nexthdr icmpv6 accept tcp dport { domain, bootpc, ntp, http, https, ircd, git } accept udp dport { domain, bootpc, ntp } accept }}

From what I understand, the way it was build was "lets isolate the features we want isolated" whereas jails (or zones) were done in "lets isolate everything and allow what we need". So it might be more lightweight but it's inherently less secure because of this. If you want something lightweight, you have capsicum on FreeBSD and OpenBSD also introduced something like it recently.

With firewalls: yes I know that linux has more features. What I was saying, pf/ipf/ipfw has way better configuration for out-of-the-box tools. Whether you consider that important is another matter.

How is a Linux cgroup with everything isolated less secure than a jail or a zone?

I think the main advantage is the flexibility, not the weight. Firejail is a tool that uses Linux cgroups to run programs in a temporary, virtual home directory and process table, but with access to the rest of the filesystem. That's not a matter of weight compared to BSD, it's something that you just can't do on BSD, as far as I know.

It's just something I heard about the design of it, I haven't studied this stuff extensively. But design philosophy definitely does matter. You could say "there's no reason to think that OpenBSD software is more secure" in exactly the same way, and while there might not be any one obvious way in which it is more secure, the fact that there's a strong focus on security is undeniable and can't be just dismissed as if it didn't matter.

Because in FreeBSD, jails are very well connected with ZFS, which means that you can quickly crate jail with the whole filesystem in it. Of course you'd want to be able to use parts of the normal filesystem for temporary stuff when you can't quickly crate a snapshot of the FS, but that's a non-issue with jails.

The most important thing is that the license is GPL-compatible: gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
That said, i would encourage using either the GPL or AGPL for server software, but your milage may vary.

What is Good, what is Evil?

What?

Fuck off shill. BSD license doesn't require contributing back and makes it vulnerable to being EEE'd by companies like MS and Sony.


Just look at what a walled garden hellhole Android is, and that happened with an even more protective license, just because it didn't account for tivoization.

Sorry, I thought cgroups were more than they actually are. I meant namespaces.

WTFPL.
Anything else is fake and gay.

Licenses are for niggers.

O P I N I O N D I S C A R D E D
P
I
N
I
O
N

D
I
S
C
A
R
D
E
D

The freedom to take freedom away is not desirable.

The best part is that the counterargument is


Of course, this ignores that the purpose of free software is to avoid shit like what is currently going on in the cell phone world. You might as well have an iphone as the device treats you the fucking same. Free software is about users.

You do realise then that some people will eat the disk and then try to sue you for their own stupidity, right?

that image is retarded.
gpl was created by a jew and both microsoft and the bsd license are not.
the merchant should be controlling gpl

Fuck off: GPL is a better indie license, MIT is a better commercial licence, and mozilla is probably the best flagship licence.

Stallman isn't of any particular race because he's a robotic autist.

Or the PS4. You can't install Linux or your own OS on it without having an old firmware version with an exploit. Sony also never has to give back a single line of code to the community.