Fractious BSDers [LWN.net]

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 6:10 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: The case of the unwelcome attribution by jordanb
Parent article: The case of the unwelcome attribution

It is certainly true that BSD has, at least since the late '80s, been subject to extreme personality clashes of the sort that make the great LKML conflicts seem positively tame. I am told that OpenBSD, for example, started after Theo cracked into the NetBSD repository he has just been shut out of, and backed out most of the patches he had previously committed. It is equally true that many of the people who work on a BSD are polite to a fault (at least in person), and tend to be a bit embarrassed by their colleagues' behavior.

I can see reasons for the the behavior. First and foremost, Linux serves as a common enemy that is much nearer to hand than Microsoft is to us; BSDers suffer more displacement by Linux than by Microsoft. Second, Theo acts in the role of a cult leader, so his followers are encouraged to froth as he does. Third, the real vitriol is by those people who don't really have much else to do, Theo aside.

In case it's not clear yet, there would have been no legal problem with applying the patches as posted, despite what Theo insists. The OpenBSD people should be thankful that the Linux people were so gracious as to bow to their wishes.

(Log in to post comments)

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 8:32 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

First and foremost, Linux serves as a common enemy that is much nearer to hand than Microsoft is to us; BSDers suffer more displacement by Linux than by Microsoft. Second, Theo acts in the role of a cult leader, so his followers are encouraged to froth as he does.

Indeed! It's actually rather sad to see a comment like this:

Theo has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software freedoms. How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly Free Software?

Murrh? OpenBSD defending Free Software from Linux? Yeah. The assumptions, mind set and meanings wrapped up in that are just mind boggling. In the grand scheme of things, we really ARE on the same side. This is like two siblings fighting with each other, when the real problem is the big bully next door.

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 15:37 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

It is their usual attitude: Linux (and other GPL software) is not really free because you don't have the basic freedom of turning it proprietary. But then when people take their code proprietary (or GPL) they complain loudly. Is it inconsistent? Not really; granting you the freedom to do something doesn't mean you think it is right to actually do it, at least in their view.

In a sense they are right. The GPL does not grant the freedom to go proprietary because of a conscious choice: it is a compromise. I think Stallman's way of thinking is more solid. First define the freedoms you think are desirable, then go for them, and try to avoid unsocial attitudes in the process.

The BSD approach works well for certain kinds of code. You can see the same arguments in Apache land (although they tend to be more polite), and their libraries are usually top quality. In other places it does not work so well, and OpenBSD seems to be one of bad ones.

Let me close this inane message with the inevitable cheap analogy. BSD is like a protestant religion: you are free to do as you wish, even if some actions are frowned upon (and others plainly wrong). GPL takes an approach more similar to Catholicism: it acknowledges human weakness and tries to help us stay away from them, while working with our strengths. And if still you sin, Father Moglen will approach you and let you confess your sins, and repent. While the protestants will condemn you to eternal Hell for having sinned; you have crossed the chasm and there is no way back. Which is indeed what we see in this case.

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 16:29 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

Yeah, I've always thought the dichotomy of how Linux is treated vs. how Microsoft is treated wrt. to BSD software was schizophrenic at best.

If you take a look at MS's initial set of TCP/IP tools, they're all the BSD tools. Sure, buried somewhere in all their documentation etc. is a copyright notice for the BSD stuff. "Yay, our name in Flyspec-3 lights! Woo!" But have you seen any of the updated source code? "Who cares, our name in lights! Who cares if it's on the back page of a manual nobody will look at, or buried in a README nobody will open? THEY KEPT OUR COPYRIGHT MESSAGE! YES! Viva la freedom!" *sigh*

So, we goof on the copyright message but leave the code and its changes out in the open. "Bad Linux. You messed up our copyright message. And we don't like your dual license. What if Microsoft wants a copy? You owe it to us to let them copy it again. At least they print our copyright message." "Dude... wait, what?"

I personally agree with you that Stallman's position is more consistent. "I will your give you this code with some restrictions. The restrictions are merely that whatever rights I grant you are transitive: I give you the code with certain rights and responsibilities. All I require is that you do the same for the next guy." Makes sense to me. You lose the right to hoard, in exchange for the generosity of others.

Eh, I think we're both preaching to the choir here.

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 9:00 UTC (Thu) by ernest (subscriber, #2355) [Link]

Apparently the BSD community has a tendancy to forget that their licence allows anybody from using and including BSD licenced code, even if the result is propritairy, without any need to contribute back. The GPL community seems to be much more aware of that fact, and so doesn't want their own GPL code to enter the BSD world.

As far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any animosity towards the people behind the BSD licence within the GPL community, so it is so troubling that there is apparently such an outspoken animosity in the other direction.

Ernest.