freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

Valeri Galtsev galtsev at
Sat Apr 18 17:18:25 UTC 2020

As Ralf did, I gave up too. This whole thread sounded like trolling to 
me. Could we, please, have this thread stopped for good?


On 4/18/20 12:08 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:24 PM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <
> freebsd-questions at> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:26:54 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> It's utter nonsense! Without doubts MIT, BSD and other licenses are
>>>> better for some projects, while for other projects GPL could grant a
>>>> bonus.
>>> Not according to the FreeBSD foundation who recommends against GPL in
>>> almost all cases.
>>> (see sections 9 and 10)
>> They do not use the terms "absolute" and "ever".
> Maybe since English is not your native language then some of the subtle
> context is lost but to a native speaker they say just that but much subtler
> way (but is unmistakable what their preference is) while recognizing for
> historical reasons some stuff has to stay GPL.   See the -hackers@ and
> -current@ lists if you want to see a huge amount of effort to remove as
> much GPL code in the base system as possible.
>> Btw. if there are already a lot of GPL licensed libraries and kernel
>> abilities available for a project of some domain, that are not
>> available by such an amount, if at all by another licensed
>> infrastructure, it could become very expensive to create the required
>> infrastructure.
> That's one reason why the ports collection exists to cleanly divorce the
> stuff that is hard to remove GPL from what is critical to the core of the
> OS.    Also /usr/src/contrib is where all stuff that cannot cleanly be used
> under BSD goes to make it clear it is legally separate then the rest of the
> base system (legally no different than RH or any other Linux dist does when
> they combine many works from different licenses into a packaged OS).
>> Those who make a living from whatever licensed software probably have
>> reasons to chose a particular license. Some probably chose the wrong
>> license by mistake, other chose a license that is good for them and
>> their customers.
> Some of them are forced to pick the wrong license due to the libraries that
> are required for their work (this is my #1 objection to GPL).   This is the
> main reason I am so ardent in calling GPL "evil".
>> I can't see that you are that successful with your business, as the
>> coder of Ardour is with his business. That might be a wrong conclusion,
>> let alone that the software license not necessarily is the reason for
>> more or less success. However, you are seemingly not programming in all
>> domains, but you don't restrain from generalizing.
> 1. Do some research before drawing conclusions if you did you would see
> over the 30 years of my career I have worked in many different domains of
> software development.
> 2. Since almost all my current work is covered by NDA's forced on me by
> clients (I would prefer not to have them) there is no way you can judge or
> not judge how successful I am
> 3. Are you a developer?  If not, you likely don't understand the economics
> of software development as well as you think you do
> According to the Wikipedia article on Ardour, it's primary author was hired
> by a hardware company to work full time on Ardour.   This is consistent
> with the claim I have made throughout the entire thread that it is
> impossible to work on GPL'ed projects and make a living unless your are
> subsidized by some organization whose primary business is not the software
> but complements the software.   For example hardware companies love
> open-source because it makes their hardware more useful to their customers
> (they are not software companies).    This does not translate to a software
> only company, for self evident reasons, nor to a company that requires
> one-off custom software for its primary business (such as many medical
> applications).
> If you want to pick a better example of a successful open source project
> that makes money I would say you should go with firefox (which is
> successful, via donations, due to overwhelming critical mass not because
> people would buy it if it was commercial)
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions at mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at"

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list