[Discuss] Home NAS redux

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/03/2013 11:14 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:32:27 -0500
> Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> 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 <markw at mohawksoft.com> 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.

>