freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

Aryeh Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Fri Apr 17 17:57:08 UTC 2020

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:31 PM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <
freebsd-questions at> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:43:07 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> > (Which
> >forbids the example you gave)
> This is utter nonsense. It says:
> "Can I use GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if
> customers do not continue paying a subscription fee?
> No. In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits the
> user's ability to run the program. This is an additional requirement on
> top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it."
> Ardour (the software example I gave) does not stop working, if a
> customer stops paying the Ardour subscription.

There wording on their site sure makes it sound like you need to pay for a
subscription (you need to read it with a very fine toughed comb to see that
it doesn't.... which proves once again anyone who attempts to make a living
with GPL stuff has to do so with some very sketchy and misleading
wording).... From

Why Subscriptions?

It is much easier to manage the revenue flow from people who decide to pay
to support the development Ardour if it arrives in a somewhat steady stream
rather than big bumps when we release new versions. One-time payments for
downloads and one-time donations are still welcome ways to support Ardour
development, of course.
I can't/won't subscribe but I want to pay and get updates

Pay at least US$45 for a particular version and you'll get all updates to
that version and the next next major version without paying again. For
example, pay this much or more for version 4.0, and you will get 4.1, 4.2
etc and 5.0 for without us asking you to pay again.

[To the causal reader that certainly looks like it "requires" money.  Only
someone who is already familar with GPL would be equipped to not read it
that way.   This is the very "morally questionable" behavior FSF was
founded to avoid]

> The GPL probably contains several pitfalls, but IMO this isn't one of
> them.
> It's possible to make a living from GPL'ed software and even to use
> GPL'ed software and a Linux kernel "in a life critical application",
> while not being an "idiot".

The comment about life critical was about the stability of linsucks not
it's license.   And of course it is possible to make a living from being a
bottom feeding piranha just ask Red Hat who takes work from other people
does very little creative work (in some cases none) and then charges for
it.   Mean while the original authors gave up any claim to being to make a
living from it when they made if GPL (at least under BSD they can charge
for the parts that not open source as long they give credit for the open
source parts).   If you want more detail on this see the interview I did in
BSDMag (Dec. 2016) where I explain in a lot better detail (and clearer
terms then here) why GPL is not compatible with mere mortal developers who
do not work for governments, universities or big tech.

Also you might want to check the ports maintainer list and the license on
the site I list in my signature before you accuse me of taking and not
giving back.   My general rule is any general purpose and/or library code I
do that is not custom made for a specific client is open source under the
BSD license.   The reason for BSD and not GPL is so I am not forced to
reveal the source code of the custom work to anyone but the client (most of
my clients would fire me instantly if I ever did).

> It's probably a good idea to put some
> effort in development and maintenance of "life critical" software and
> hardware, what ever license applies, what ever operating system and
> hardware is used.

See above (it is a 100% custom coded system).

> freebsd-questions at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at"

Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer,

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list