freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at
Sat Apr 18 07:28:03 UTC 2020

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:50:09 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
>And here goes the *ABSOLUTE* reason why no developer who ever hopes to
>make any money at all from their work should *EVER* use GPL.

You were already proven wrong! Let alone that you are defeated by a
naive miscalculation.

Business models based on secret recipes don't grant to earn money. Even
without "reverse engineering"/"	disassembling" the idea could be
taken over.

I don't clame that the GPL is better (or less good) as MIT, BSD or what
ever else licenses. I only claim that you are spreading misinformation.

There are reasons for different licenses, so it's important to
understand those reasons. The problem you have got is, that you don't
understand anything at all.

Note, the world is not divided into Communists and Capitalists, or
into idiots and people who know objective facts. 

Since you don't understand the reasons and consequences of the
different open source licenses, you might want to take a look at the
Creative Commons, since it explains an open minded worldview beyond
your Communist-Capitalist-idiots-misinterpreted-objective-facts
crap. To some extend it also fits to open source software licensing.
Broadly speaking the Creative Commons is spread into “Approved for Free
Cultural Works” and not “Approved for Free Cultural Works” licensing.

Programmers as well as artist could earn enough money to make a living
from work, that is also available for free as in beer. Some programmers
and artists even don't want to make money at all with their software or
artwork. However, programmers or artists are free to strike out on
their own. Users are free to do the same.

We have the freedom of choice. The pitfall of this freedom is, that it's
annoying to care about all the details.

As for myself, my life is to short to even read all end-user licence
agreements, let alone to entirely understand those I read. If a
programmer wants to sell software, the business model could be to
provide easy to understand end-user licence agreements, that give users
advantages and a free open source code, that gives advantages to

For artists there is the CreativeCommons, it's a construction kit. For
coders there are different FLOSS licenses, all with their pros and
cons. If you remove the different names of those FLOSS licenses, you
could consider it a construction kit, too, comparable to the
CreativeCommons construction kit.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list