Implement memory management, ELF loading, dynamic linking, filesystem access, block device access, display access, keyboard input, mouse input, USB stack, network device support, a TCP/IP stack and a userspace C library. Poof! You've just written an operating system!
Now port GNU on it or nobody will care.
why would anyone want to port shitty non-free versions of basic utilities to a new operating system when there are better, free versions available?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 14:13
>>14
Spoken like a true BSD purist. Too bad the BSD license is awful for attracting developers, seeing as most people don't want to be unpaid slaves of assholes and corporations. Software freedom is what matters.
>>19
Only the ANONIX license is true Free Software
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 15:46
>>19
Only by its own insistence. There's nothing free about ``you can only use this how I say''.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 15:48
SICP has pretty much all the stuff you need to know to write an OS
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 15:50
>>19
no, it is not. http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it. This is how you pay for GPL code. http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/ The BSD is no doubt a freer license, it gives you the right to decide what rights to bundle with the software. That is much closer to the absolute meaning of “freedom” than the GPL. What the GPL terms “freedom” is actually fairly subversive, because it *forces* you to do certain things. Most people who are forced to do something call that a “restriction” rather than a “freedom”. It’s true that you have certain freedoms when you get the software, but if you want to pass it on you have restrictions, so they could just as well call it the four freedoms and the four restrictions. Therefore, if we take the philosophical ideal of freedom to heart, even though both of these licenses promote free software, none of them represent freedom, and the GPL is far less free than the BSD.
FREEEST SOFTWARE - THIS SOFTWARE IS SO FUCKING FREE YOU WOULD NOT EVEN BLEIVE IT, I REALLY MEAN IT. COMPLEtELY FUCKING FREE. IT's SO FREE YOU COULD SHAKE A STICK AT IT, A ReaLLY BIG FREE STICK. THIS SOFTWARE IS FREER THAN .....
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 16:00
GPL is about ensuring anyone has the FREEDOM to modify any piece of software as they see fit. It's not intended to let a developer use it as he pleases to. So yeah, the GPL places some restrictions on how you can use the code, but if you complain about that it just means you haven't understood anything.
Slavery is no doubt freer, it gives you the right to decide what rights to give other people. That is much closer to the absolute meaning of “freedom” than stupid laws. What the law terms “freedom” is actually fairly subversive, because it *forces* you to do certain things. Most people who are forced to do something call that a “restriction” rather than a “freedom”. It’s true that you have certain freedoms when you meet a person, but if you want to have him work for you you have restrictions. Therefore, if we take the philosophical ideal of freedom to heart laws against slavery are far less free than no laws about it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 18:21
>>26
i'd be a lot more willing to fix bugs in GPL'd software if i could freely distribute the fixed versions, but writing BSD-licensed wrappers to work around the broken GNU libraries works and doesn't require making my code non-free, so i do that instead.
>>29
Most "lol i HAET teh GPL" people never will. Just kill them when the revolution comes.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 18:46
So what can we conclude from all this? Both license models make software free, but only GPL software is sustainably free. The BSD gives greater freedom, the GPL gives more freedom. Choose which one you value more.
Also, might I add that 'free' does not always mean 'with no cost'. There is potential for cost to be incurred with GPL'd software (for example, RHEL or SuSe Enterprise). Likewise, when Lincoln 'freed the slaves', he did not make them available for zero cost.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 19:09
>>31
lincoln had that annoying habit of throwing people in jail just because they disagreed with him.
he didn't really free the slaves, he stole them and made everyone slaves to the IRS.
>>23
The GPL is a Free Software license. The two-clause BSD license is likewise a Free Software license. The difference between the two is that the BSD license is more permissive than the GNU GPL. Both only grant rights, neither takes them away.
That people who release code under the GNU GPL refuse to give their work up for your exclusive, proprietary benefit may be slightly difficult to understand for a "gimme gimme gimme" type person such as you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 19:21
Also writing BSD-licensed wrappers around GPLed code doesn't work. Your BSD-licensed code will still be a derived work of GPL'd code and must therefore be distributed under the GNU GPL, as the terms of the wrapped code indicate.
Furthermore, your code that uses your shim layer will also be a derived work of the code under GNU GPL, and hence must be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL -- likewise for binaries.
I fully understand the teenage butthurt driven impulse to rip off GNU GPL'd source code. It's the same impulse that drives people to arson, vandalism, physical violence and murder. You'll get over it some time after you've turned 20.
>>40
If by "freedom" you mean "more restrictions", then you are correct.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 22:52
>>42
If by "more restrictions" you mean "less subjugation of users", then you are correct in deeming him correct.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-21 23:00
>>43
If by "less subjugation of users" you mean "more subjugation of users", then you are correct in deeming >>42 correct in deeming >>40 correct.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 0:15
>>44
In by "subjugation" you mean "subjecting the users to rules that ensure that they are unable to restrict fellow users", then I am correct in deeming that WHBTC.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 0:29
>>45
If by "restrict fellow users" you mean "improve the product to such a degree that other users will choose to use the improved version even though the changes are not released under a similarly free license.", then fuck this.
The absence of rules does not make everybody free. All it does is make power available to the strongest. The strongest inevitably uses that power to usurp freedom from the weak.
This is what happens with liberally licensed free software; software that was once free is now being used to subjugate users of their right to freedom.
So what is freedom with relation to software? [b]Software freedom the right for one user to help oneself; accepting proprietary software means that the user is helpless. How do users live in freedom when they always require explicit permission in order to help themselves? Note that there is no guarantee for anybody to granted the necessary freedoms in the context of proprietary software; it is normal for all users to be completely helpless in this context.
Freedom with relation to software is the right to be upstanding members of society. A free society should not require explicit permission in order to share and cooperate. The nature of computer software is to exist as a tool. Upstanding citizens share their tools, information and resources with their neighbours. However, there is a problem: accepting proprietary software means that society is forbidden to share; accepting proprietary software means one is divided from the rest of society.
There is no freedom in proprietary software as users are expected to be helpless and divided in order to use them.
The GNU GPLs are free simply because of the reason that those that accept it have the liberty to live free and upstanding lives.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 9:22
>>50
A writes a program, and distributes it only in source form under the GPL.
B gets the source from A, compiles it, and deletes the source code.
A deletes the source code.
B and C have identical hardware and run the same operating system.
C wants a copy of the program, and doesn't care whether it's in source or binary form, as long as he can run it. there is no legal way for C to obtain a copy of the program.
The absence of rules does not make everybody free. All it does is make power available to the strongest. The strongest inevitably uses that power to usurp freedom from the weak.
except that Microsoft/IBM/Sun/Torvalds/whoever can't legally break into your house and remove code from your hard drive, no matter how liberally it's licensed. with BSD-licensed code, they can't take away your right to use, modify, and distribute the code either.
however, if you don't have the source code, they can take away your right to distribute GPL-licensed binaries that you compiled from source. they can't do that with BSD-licensed binaries.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 10:49
>>51
Of course there is. C can receive a copy of the binary via A, who can (at his whim) relicense it to not require an offer of source code to be distributed alongside the binary.
Perhaps you should read the actual text of the GNU GPL version 3, rather than relying on your personal hallucinatory memories of it. For a software license, it's very readable and its legalese is of the kind that can be understood by informed laymen.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 11:09
>>40
That's the way copyright law works. By default you have no rights to another person's work whatsoever. Both the BSD license and the GNU GPL grant you additional permissions besides the "you can't do jack shit with this" guaranteed by international treaties etc.
The main difference between the two is that the permissions granted by the GNU GPL are conditional, as required by its explicit design goal to guarantee and expand software freedom. From this perspective it's quite odd that we have BSD fanboys screaming and ranting that software licensed under the GNU GPL should instead be licensed under a two-clause BSD license. What are their goals? Are they planning to "improve" that source code and then close it off? Or "improve" it and release the changes, which the GNU GPL explicitly permits itself?
Besides permitting proprietary forks and "not being by the FSF who are dirty hippie communists", there is no point to the BSD license at all. Software that one wants to be permitted to be linked against non-free software can be licensed under the Lesser GPL. For reasonable, cooperative people the GNU GPL and its Lesser sibling cover all bases as far as source code is concerned. Only those who would like to make Free Software non-free would want it released under a BSD-like license.
As for people who release their own programs under a BSD-like license, I have no idea where they come from. I'm tempted to say that they are the idealist fringe, which crops up in any popular movement (and Free Software certainly is that), but the absence of patent-based takeover protection in the license makes this improbable. It's as though they were inviting others to claim patents on their own production and have it closed off for the next 20 years for some butthole's proprietary benefit.
In short, use of the BSD license for newly-written software is insane. There are no upsides to it that weren't tied to business models oriented around non-free software, and it is weak against attacks that were well-known more than twenty years ago.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 11:43
>>52
that only works if A has a binary for whatever platform C needs one for and is willing to give it to C.
>>53
BSD-licensed code is free for anyone to use, and nothing anyone does can make BSD-licensed code that you have non-free. a corporation can relicense the code, sure, but that doesn't affect your rights. you'd still have all the same rights you had before. they can't steal anything from you. they can't close the source code. it's already open. it's already freely available to anyone who wants it. it can't be closed up because the rights granted by the license aren't conditional.
i never improve GPL'd code, because i don't want to license my code under a non-free license. if i'm going to give code away for free, i want to make damn sure that anyone can use it for any purpose.
the GPL is a huge step backwards toward the proprietary licenses that the corporations you hate so much use. claiming that adding several kilobytes of restrictions to the license and a misleading, irrelevant manifesto at the beginning makes the software somehow more free is insane. the only advantage of the GPL is that it allows corporations like Red Hat, IBM, and Sun to take advantage of open source development and not worry about their competitors using the same freely available code to create a better product.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 19:44
>>51 C wants a copy of the program, and doesn't care whether it's in source or binary form, as long as he can run it.
there is no legal way for C to obtain a copy of the program.
Wrong. There is no legal way for B to fulfill the requirements of the GNU GPL and so, B cannot legally distribute the program. C does not care about source because he doesn't care for freedom; not caring for freedom is a short sighted way to live life.
>>51,54 except that Microsoft/IBM/Sun/Torvalds/whoever can't legally break into your house and remove code from your hard drive, no matter how liberally it's licensed. with BSD-licensed code, they can't take away your right to use, modify, and distribute the code either.
This is true, nobody can come to your computer and remove code from your hard drive. What we are concerned about is when people take free software then make it into proprietary software. The free software ALWAYS remains free but people will use the absence of rules to subjugate freedom of other people; this is a fact that will never change. This is why the GPL protects the four essential freedoms; any other freedom is secondary to the four freedoms. You can do anything you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the four freedoms.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 20:08
C does not care about source because he doesn't care for freedom
Or maybe C doesn't care about your definition of ``freedom'', and has shit he wants to get done in the most efficient way possible. I wouldn't call it a short sighted way of life, I'd call it ``not being a GPL fag''.
Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, the GPL is truly free.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 20:58
Nobody claims the GPL is truly free except idiots, stop attacking straw men.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-22 21:25
Free as in not truly free
Name:
IHBTC2008-10-22 22:20
>>58
The BSD license isn't truly free either. Why do you deny people the right to relicense your work without asking, or credit themselves with its creation?
>>59
the BSD license does allow relicensing, and it doesn't say they can't credit themselves with it's creation. they're just required to keep the copyright acknowledgement.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 3:06
You think the Indians care about any of this shit. When a company outsources, they get back open source code wirtten by the someone else that the Indians have repurposed.
Give them a project to do from scratch that they can't take advantage of open source stupidity, and you will see their 3rd world diploma is worth as much as the hand they wipe their ass with. Can never remember if culturally its the right or the left. I never shake their fucking hands.
Or maybe C doesn't care about your definition of ``freedom'', and has shit he wants to get done in the most efficient way possible. I wouldn't call it a short sighted way of life, I'd call it ``not being a GPL fag''.
I ask once again, how does one live in freedom when one requires permission to help oneself and be an upstanding citizen?
Let's take the example of Adobe Photoshop. It is a very useful and powerful program. However, it has the problem of being user subjugating software.
With Photoshop, users don't even have the right to freedom 0. In order to remain legal, users must get explicit permission from Adobe using Photoshop's DRM scheme just to get very limited rights to freedom 0. The people that install and use Photoshop without Adobe's blessing is violating the terms of the licence. They have to live underground rather than live as an upstanding member of society.
How do licensed users of Adobe Photoshop live in freedom? The answer is they don't. What people do is trade their right to live as legitimate citizens in order to use a very attractive and powerful tool. These people are short sighted for trading their freedom for convenient subjugation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 8:57
>>12
Congratulations to post 12, for being the only relevant poster in this thread.
>>1
An OS is extreme complicated. I wouldn't make an attempt unless you really know your shit.
>>63
Adobe Photoshop is not licensed under BSD or GPL. Try ranting about something relevant.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 11:30
>>63
Right to live as legitimate citizens? What the fuck are you talking about? Does everyone have the right to install Adobe Photoshop now?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 12:27
>>63
Photoshop users are not short-sighted because of your crazy hippie ideals.
They are short-sighted because an objective comparison of Photoshop and The Gimp clearly shows that Photoshop stopped being relevant many versions ago.
Of course, people bitch about the GIMP not being a Photoshop clone, since the momentum gained by the open-source movement in the user interaction design communities helped us, as a culture, to outgrow the need to clone commercial software, freeing us from legacy paradigms that no longer make sense.
Graphic artists need to be more vocal about their embracing the GIMP.
>>68
But it's free shit, which makes it less shitty. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 16:47
>>67,68,69
People who can't accomplish anything with Photoshop or the Gimp.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 18:15
>>70
Person who cannot understand that the rights and freedom of Photoshop and the Gimp is not <= using those programs
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 19:03
>>65
The context is: being short sighted by trading freedom for convenient subjugation.
>>66
How does a citizen live a free and upstanding life when the citizen requires permission to help himself?
Installing Photoshop (any recent version) requires users to get Adobe's explicit permission in order to satisfy Photoshop's DRM scheme. Citizens that install "legitimate" copies of Photoshop do not live in freedom; they are living subject to the goodwill of Adobe. Citizens that install "illegitimate" copies of Photoshop do not live as upstanding citizens. They are required to keep their actions hidden or be subject to legal action.
An upstanding citizen should not have to live like this. An upstanding citizen should live straight and upright lives.
>>67
Photoshop is just an example showing how people are short sighted by trading their right to freedom for convenience. People do not live in freedom when accepting proprietary software.
Another example I could have used would be for any recent history computer game. Let's say I own a Sun Ultra 45 workstation. Let's say I run FreeBSD on this system. By all means, this system has enough number crunching abilities to run a copy of The Sims. I cannot run it because of EA's policy of user subjugation. They dictate how the program should be run and I must either accept or reject it. If the program was free, I could invest my money into changing the code to make it work on my system.
With regards to the Sims, I cannot live in freedom as I am helpless to help myself.
>>72
There's nothing fucking ``short-sighted'' about that. Photoshop is commercial software. Users know exactly what they're getting, and can pay the asking price or find an alternative. Nobody has an obligation to write software for you.
What's more ridiculous is that you're trying to imply that this makes writing free software wrong and stupid, because only the subjugation of the GPL is hip enough for forward-thinking elite sheeple. There is no sane reason why free software shouldn't be a common base for everyone to build from, regardless of whether those developers are such evil kkkapitalistz that they also want to have money to eat.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 19:46
There's nothing fucking ``short-sighted'' about that. Photoshop is commercial software. Users know exactly what they're getting, and can pay the asking price or find an alternative. Nobody has an obligation to write software for you.
All these assertions are correct though nothing here though counters my assertion that these people are short sighted. Choosing proprietary software is like choosing to have different masters to rule over yourself; they may provide you with the most convenient living conditions but you still have to live under their rule as long as you stay under their rule.
What's more ridiculous is that you're trying to imply that this makes writing free software wrong and stupid, because only the subjugation of the GPL is hip enough for forward-thinking elite sheeple. There is no sane reason why free software shouldn't be a common base for everyone to build from, regardless of whether those developers are such evil kkkapitalistz that they also want to have money to eat.
Please rephrase this into plain english. I don't understand your point.
While the FreeBSD license isn't very restrictive, it does have restrictions. So does the GNU and MIT license. All this "free" software does not let you do whatever the fuck you want with them.
It just happens it would allow you to do something you want to do.
You think its "free" because its "free" to you. The world doesn't revolve around your faggotry.
The same laws that let EA do what they can with the seems allows open source to make their licenses and restrictions.
Ignorant faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 20:43
>>78
The freedom I am referring to is right to freedom (the right to help myself) and social solidarity (the right to help my neighbours) . Nobody here can manage to solve my question in a satisfactory manner: How do I live in freedom when I require permission to help myself? How do I live in freedom when I require permission to share and cooperate (be an upstanding citizen)?
This isn't just a rhetorical question as it has only one solution: I cannot live in freedom when I require permission to help myself and be an upstanding citizen.
People may have the legal right to create and distribute proprietary software but it doesn't mean these actions are socially or ethically acceptable.
>>81
Anyone can spout lofty rhetorical nonsense. Your ideas fail any test of reason.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 21:14
>>83
Please test me. I write these things in order to be tested. It seems that nobody can answer my questions directly. It seems that there is a pattern of not directly addressing my specific assertion.
>>83
I don't think you have an assertion. Enjoy your empty rethorics.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-23 22:11
How do I live in freedom when I require permission to help myself?
The answer depends on your definitions of ``freedom'' and ``helping onself''. If, to you, they mean being able to take other people's software and release it under the GPL, then there's really nothing we can say that is going to make any sense in your world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 7:25
GPL: Operation Enduring Freedom
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 13:47
I downloaded a torrent with Photoshop CS4 and there is absolutely nothing Adobe can realistically do about it.
Enjoy your GIMP
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 13:51
>>87
The fact that they haven't really sued people over piracy in the past doesn't mean they can't ruin you and your immediate family if they decide to. The RIAA took care of the ground work.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 16:41
>>88
But it's never going to happen. Piracy will last FOREVER AND EVER!
(Unless we end up living in a real police-state and there truly is no such thing as privacy for anyone at all.)
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 17:15
Not a single anonix reference in an OS thread except in >>20 and >>47
>>89
Won't change anything. Just means that the ones doing the pirating will be the authority figures in the police state.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-25 17:43
>>91
Won't change anything. Just means that the ones doing the Anonix OS will be the authority figures in the police state.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-25 21:00
The answer depends on your definitions of ``freedom'' and ``helping onself''.
Freedom 0 - the right to run the program as you wish for any purpose. Users of proprietary software often require permission to run software according to the purpose they use it for for example, personal home use vs. school use or commercial business use vs. government use. Without this implied permission, the user is subject to the master's goodwill and so, the user cannot live in freedom. To operate the program without the master's goodwill means that the citizen is no longer living freely but living underground.
Freedom 1 - the right to learn from, study and tinker with the program. Some reasons that require programmers to tinker with programming code include fixing software bugs; a change in user circumstances which result in a change software requirements; make some changes to the software to bring the usefulness closer to perfection.
Without programming source code, users cannot hope to get a program improved in any practical manner. Without programming source code, users depend upon the master's goodwill for help. Without programming source code, users cannot live in freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-25 22:07
I downloaded a torrent with Photoshop CS4 and there is absolutely nothing Adobe can realistically do about it.
That's right, Adobe cannot do anything realistic to prevent you personally from using your unlicensed copy of Photoshop. It doesn't change the fact that you must keep this action hidden as long as you lack Adobe's authority to use this software as you wish. You have to live underground as long as you lack this authority; you are not living in freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 0:13
>>94,95
Jesus. Where is the sagebomb guy when you need him?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 1:21
>>95
I once read about a guy who physically walked into Adobe offices and stated that he uses pirated copies of their software. They all enjoyed a good laugh.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 3:26
>>97
Link please. Besides that, Photoshop is just an example. Try the same stunt with any other software manufacturer that values their IP.