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.