freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:57 AM Dale Scott <dalescott at shaw.ca> wrote:

> *From: *"Aryeh Friedman" <aryeh.friedman at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Dale Scott" <dalescott at shaw.ca>
> *Cc: *"Polytropon" <freebsd at edvax.de>, "Paul Pathiakis" <
> pathiaki2 at yahoo.com>, "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> *Sent: *Friday, April 17, 2020 6:50:09 PM
> *Subject: *Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel
> architecture
>
>
> ...anything that makes it hard or impossible to charge for the work (see
> below) is an immediate non-starter.
>
> It's also generally not legal to profit from committing a crime.
>

What (possible) crime are you claiming someone is (potentially) profiting
from and what is its relevance to this discussion?


> ...clauses 5 and 6 of the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd-annotated) such
> restrictions are by definition not open source.
>
> If you say so, but the OSI is only an industry association and the OSD
> only their opinion.
>

It is also the most widely accepted general definition and if we are not
willing to agree on an objective definition of what open source is and what
it is not then it is quite literally impossible to have this discussion.
Note OSD is also the definition that both FSF and FreeBSD point to as the
standard to measure against.   If you have some other published objective
measure you are using please state where to find it.



>
> Correct but you're focusing on the wrong details and misreading the ones
> you do focus on.
>
> Wouldn't that depend on what's important to me?
>

What matters is making it so everyone (not just you) can contribute and
benefit from stuff people choose to make open source (instead of being
overly constrained by the license).   Therefore an objective
measure/definition of what is allowed and not allowed is needed.   But so
far from your wording above it is seems you reject the most widely known
objective definition.   You need to recognize that while the license needs
to be one size fits all for legal reasons it also needs to be able to
balance the demands of different stakeholders including people who are
attempting to actually put food on the table and roof over their head while
still making their work as open as possible.



> P.S. there seems to be something wrong with the Petitecloud source tarball
> download.
>
>
The site has not been updated since 2016 and has decayed for that reason.
I am currently working on modernizing PC to handle the newer version of
bhyve (the one that can handle external BIOS's) and being updated to handle
a newer version of our API library.   Despite the code being in quiet a bit
of  disarray if you tell me where to send it I will send a snapshot of it
to you if you request it.  Since it is under BSD you're free to do whatever
you wish with it.


-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org