What’s the point of it?
OpenBSD = Security
FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like
NetBSD = ???
Based on the name of have assumed it’s be used in things like network appliances but in 20 years I’ve never seen a single device use it.
Somewhat confused this is in a linux community when none of these OS are linux based. Are we lacking on BSD communities?
We don’t have BSD communities and even if we did they probably wouldn’t be big enough to get a decent answer.
So I asked here cos there’s a high chance that some Linux users will also know something about *BSD.
That doesn’t mean we want it here. Missing the community you are looking for? Create it.
OpenBSD = Security
It is actually correctless. OpenBSD = Correctness + Simple + Free (free from copyleft too)
FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like
Citation???
NetBSD
maximum portability??
But up to NetBSD 10 (at the time writing it was not released) YOU DON’T HAVE SSL CERTIFICATES INSTALLED IN THE BASE SYSTEM !
That’s my warning :)
I dont get that “no copyleft” of OpenBSD. Like, anything they do will just be used by Apple, Sony etc. and they dont give shit back
OpenBSD try to remove GPL licensed software from base. (with free alternative)
Like, anything they do will just be used by Apple, Sony etc. and they dont give shit back
This is what the OpenBSD team want, and also appreciated by other BSD developers.
I have no idea why they would do that to themselves. You develop free software without any protection again abuse?
SEE THEIR POLICY, don’t complain with me
https://openbsd.org/policy.html
They distribute a Free operating system
The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.
A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.
In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
Thanks for the info. A very controversial topic.
It is controversial for outsider
bringing it to developers is a way to waste their time
A project could compromise by entering into NDA agreements with vendors, or including binary objects in the operating system for which no source code exists
Agreed.
I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that. Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?
