Is this bunk.

Chad Perrin perrin at
Mon Aug 23 03:27:31 UTC 2010

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote:
> This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this
> as twaddle.
> Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in),
> they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get
> much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD.

My understanding is that it's a Mach kernel with some FreeBSD userland
that has since been worked over with a rake, producing the Darwin OS.
Following that, Apple dropped a load of proprietary stuff on top of
Darwin to produce MacOS X.

> Also, Windows uses  (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for
> instance.

This is true.

> So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it,
> or filing bugs or whatever.
> (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as
> well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...)

Good for you.

> Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied
> in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support
> software developed under such licenses.

Why not?  Tell me what benefit is gained by not using FreeBSD, or what
benefit is lost by discouraging others from using your technology.

> Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple
> done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE.
> So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD
> license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most
> significantly Apple.

WebKit is actually not GPLed.  It's a combination (at least primarily) of
the LGPL and the BSD License.  I guess you should stop using any WebKit
based browser if you don't like the BSD License.

> This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code
> in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive.

In what way is it counterproductive?  What goal do you want to serve that
the BSD License hinders?

Perhaps you should consider some alternative views of the matter.  For
instance, there's . . .

 *  Copyfree (an alternative to Copyright and Copyleft):

 *  Software Liberation Front (counter-copyleft advocacy):

 *  Choose the Right Licensing Model for Security Software:

 *  Copyfree vs. Copyleft:

 *  BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft:

I have found that it's really the GPL, and copyleft licensing in general,
that is counterproductive.  It has been used to launch attacks on small
open source projects, employ anticompetitive and monopolistic business
tactics, and keep open source code from being used in other open source
projects.  In fact, copyleft licenses tend to be mutually incompatible.
They prohibit proprietary software projects from using their code, and
they also prohibit copyfree software projects (such as the FreeBSD
project) from using their code (at least directly) -- but they also
prohibit copyleft projects that use a different copyleft license from
using their code.

I find the hypocrisy rather odious.  I suppose your tastes may differ.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list