Given the long history of companies not upstreaming to BSD (WindRiver, PlayStation, Apple), I would say yea, it’s fairly obvious BSDs are exploited? Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
You might see short term gains because companies can innovate without giving back but yeah, definitely not the kind of stuff I want to support.
But would rather have another kernel because GPL. What google did, was creating a (mostly closed) ecosystem they control on top of the open source base.
Exploited? This is what the license is made for. You can take freebsd and do what you like - it’s free as in air, no strings attached other than the licence text.
You might not understand why the authors use MIT-like licensing
Insightful comment! This is what we need to build a good community!!
If you don’t like MIT/BSD licensing it’s fine with me, but to claim those that use it is stupid or exploited because of their choices. These are people far smarter than you and capable of making their own choices.
My understanding is that FreeBSD has no issues with Apple basing their OS on FreeBSD. But you guys probably know better
I tend to agree with this take; as a pedantic side note, though, I’m not sure that OS X was ever based on FreeBSD – they took the unix userland, sure; but from the very start (NextSTEP), the kernel was derived from the Mach kernel, which itself was a fork of the 4.3BSD kernel; and the core libraries were written from scratch, all in the interests of marketing “quick application development” capability to Next’s customers. (Actually there’s an interview with S. Jobs somewhere where he lays this out very clearly; it was the late 80s/early 90s, the heyday of object-oriented toolkits & VMs after all)
I’m sure they’ve helped themselves liberally to the FreeBSD kernel for features; though still, OS X never was ‘based on’ FreeBSD (let alone a ‘FreeBSD with a pretty coat of paint’, as people like to say).
Given the long history of companies not upstreaming to BSD (WindRiver, PlayStation, Apple), I would say yea, it’s fairly obvious BSDs are exploited? Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
You might see short term gains because companies can innovate without giving back but yeah, definitely not the kind of stuff I want to support.
Ok, to be fair, they would probably have done the same like Google with Android.
Google and many other phone manufacturers contributed a lot to the upstream kernel because of android.
But would rather have another kernel because GPL. What google did, was creating a (mostly closed) ecosystem they control on top of the open source base.
Exploited? This is what the license is made for. You can take freebsd and do what you like - it’s free as in air, no strings attached other than the licence text.
You might not understand why the authors use MIT-like licensing
I tend not to understand cucks either
Insightful comment! This is what we need to build a good community!!
If you don’t like MIT/BSD licensing it’s fine with me, but to claim those that use it is stupid or exploited because of their choices. These are people far smarter than you and capable of making their own choices.
My understanding is that FreeBSD has no issues with Apple basing their OS on FreeBSD. But you guys probably know better
I tend to agree with this take; as a pedantic side note, though, I’m not sure that OS X was ever based on FreeBSD – they took the unix userland, sure; but from the very start (NextSTEP), the kernel was derived from the Mach kernel, which itself was a fork of the 4.3BSD kernel; and the core libraries were written from scratch, all in the interests of marketing “quick application development” capability to Next’s customers. (Actually there’s an interview with S. Jobs somewhere where he lays this out very clearly; it was the late 80s/early 90s, the heyday of object-oriented toolkits & VMs after all)
I’m sure they’ve helped themselves liberally to the FreeBSD kernel for features; though still, OS X never was ‘based on’ FreeBSD (let alone a ‘FreeBSD with a pretty coat of paint’, as people like to say).