For OpenBSD, "No More Apache Updates" 128
joshmccormack writes "On June 6th Henning Brauer, an OpenBSD developer announced on one of the OpenBSD mailing lists that the version of Apache shipped with OpenBSD will stay with 1.3.29, due to Apache's license changes. There will be bug fixes, but no more updates. Discussion on blogs, websites and mailing lists on what's next bring up some interesting ideas and strong opinions. Difference of opinion and control have been catalysts to the growth of OpenBSD in the past. Will this be like the birth of pf in OpenBSD, or even the start of OpenBSD itself?"
Story: check.. (Score:4, Informative)
More info to read up on: fail.
Reference to the relevant list / list archive: fail.
Perhaps this story could be fleshed out a little ?
I'll google it or use some other news source to find more about this, but...
Re:Story: check.. (Score:5, Informative)
A link for you [neohapsis.com].
But you're right, it's a very content-free post.
Re:Story: check.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Story: check.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Story: check.. (Score:5, Informative)
Since I'm subscribed to the mailing list I've gotten to read all about it for the last couple days. Here's a link to the mailing list archive....here [theaimsgroup.com]
A page to actually read more on this is here [undeadly.org].
This s about Patents and it is a strange complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, the clause says that if you have any patent claims to the code that you contribute (or is it just use? I'm not sure.) then you irrevocably grant license to others for those patents and if you sue , then you can't use Apache.
I'm unsure as to how this is a bad thing. Most "free" software licences were written before software patents were a big issue, and therefore only deal with software as a copyrightable, and not a patentable entity. Just as software code must be updated to deal with new operating enviroments, so legal licensing code must be updated to deal with a changing legal enviroment.
The new clause forces patent holders to play nice as well as copyright holders.
Would it be better to encourage lawsuits over patent issues?
Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is where the problems come in. From what I can tell (be warned: legal-speak confuses me immensely) it seems to be a necessary change because of the recent furore about software patents. It seems to be merely a restriction to prevent patent-holders from contributing their ideas to the codebase and then down the line trying to charge for use.
The problem then appears to stem from the fact that said restriction is a restriction - and is incompatible with the majority of current free/open licenses.
Or something, anyway. but basically it looks like changes which are a good idea in theory are incompatible with the letter of a lot of F/OSS licenses. And, like it or not, this means that it can cause problems unless/until the GPL/BSD/WTF licenses catch up with the changes.
I'm not so sure it's that the changes are nevessarily a "bad thing", more that the various F/OSS groups are showing that they take licensing seriously. And with the current anti-free FUD going around, showing that they will take serious steps to avoid breaking licenses can only be a positive step.
TiggsSadly, the drawback is that to Play By The Rules sometimes they have to make unpopular decisions. But the flipside is that, if necessary, they can still fork from earlier versions.
Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla (Score:2)
Essentially it boils down to the difference between making your ideas public domain and GPLing them.
I can see the logic behind either approach, but the public domain-ish one seems to be more natural; to do otherwise would be like saying "I'm going to publish this information out in the open, call it Free but reserve the right to sue your ass back to the stonea
Re:Patents and it is a strange complaint (Score:2)
There seems to be a paradox, because if patent holders can sue over contributed code, then the software is non-free for the user.
So with the clause, the contributor loses the freedom for preying on users legally, while without the clause, users retain the freedom to subject themselves to endless legal hassles.
This is a perversion of freedom absurd. Th
Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla (Score:1)
theo has made it clear, a number of times, that nothing new will get into the tree with unfree licenses. he (and the rest of openbsd) want it this way.
really, it boils down to simplicity of the license. read the 30 or so lines
Re:Story: check.. (Score:5, Informative)
So what? (Score:5, Informative)
The only way this is even close to what happend with ipf/pf would be if the OpenBSD folks decided to write their own web server and release it under the BSD license, which isn't going to happen because they're OS folks, not web server folks.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
Cheers.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
It appears, from their benchmarks [acme.com], that performance running test C CGI's is very good for thttpd.
Seems like it might be best for simpler scripts, tough, as it appears [linux.ie] that CGI execution is serialized, so "...one long running
script will block all other requests." Here's another explanation. [fukt.bth.se]
Re:So what? (Score:2)
We use thttpd on quite a few of our static servers, and I have to say it's absolutely fabulous. Instead of thousands of tasks that Apache 1.3.x would run, it has just one. Well, we start up a few sessions, and found a dual 1.4Ghz machine with 1Gb RAM has absolutely no trouble sending out 150Mb/s through teql bound NIC's. That's 150Mb/s
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes to great lengths to protect the web server machine against attacks and breakins from other sites.
Well, you shold try to google for thttpd security [google.com]. It has a security record which makes Windows 95 look pretty good.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
thttpd security: 26000 results
apache security: 2860000 results
I'm not entirely sure that google results are conclusive.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, am shocked that there are 26,000 total pages that mention thttpd at all, let alone with "security" thrown in.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm. Non-forking model.
For specific solutions requiring fast startup and minimal size for serving static pages, I bet thttpd is perfectly reasonable.
I'm not sure a non-forking, 100% in memory, server can replace a full commercial installation of Apache (when tuned properly, that is).
Not having looked at thttpd in any real way, this is my first concern.
I also depend on a fair amount of module support in Apache (so obviously, I'm not _that_ concerned with performance!) so switching to some new model mig
Re:So what? (Score:1)
This is how APACHE got started (Score:5, Informative)
Back around 1995, development of the NCSA sort-of-free web server was starting to die out, and developers who had been producing a set of patches to the NCSA project decided to "fork" their development branch.
After the fork, the majority of development effort concentrated in the new "Apache" project, and the NCSA HTTPd died out about a year later.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Other OS vendors (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone care to elaborate on this?
Re:Other OS vendors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other OS vendors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other OS vendors (Score:1)
RTFA... (Score:5, Funny)
Not a real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this will be a real problem. If Apache is no longer allowed in the OpenBSD base system it can simply be moved to ports/packages, and it will be just a pkg_add away - just as is now the case with Apache 2.0.
JP
Re:Not a real problem (Score:5, Informative)
As always, if the end users need more features, they can install a newer version. But note the warning on the openbsd-misc list: [theaimsgroup.com]
Re:Not a real problem (Score:3, Interesting)
But since everything is open source, it should be possible to apply any OpenBSD security patches to 1.3.31 or later, and offer that one (in ports/packages) as 1.3.31 (+ patches), right?
JP
Re:Not a real problem (Score:5, Informative)
In theory, this should be doable. In practice, it will be a mess of backporting and three-way merging.
Not to mention something you will have to do every time the Apache people release new versions with their own patches. You can only maintain your own abandoned tree for so long.
I guess you could build off of your own copy of their CVS tree, and just rebuild based on their tags. This defeats the purpose (to me) of a nice easy ./configure ...; make; make install.
Whom to complain to? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope he means the US and EU governments here. Had there been no software pattents under incredibly lax oversight with the subsequent abuse thereof, the Apache Software Foundaton wouldn't be forced to write this clause into the license.
No big deal... (Score:2)
Re:No big deal... (Score:1)
httpd=""
in /etc/rc.conf.local and you've got a webserver. With something as complicated as Apache, it would be hard to make it as easy as that if it were a port. Also, I think it would be considered rude for a port to go around setting up stuff in /var.
They seem to like to be able to do just about all of the basics out of the box.
Re:No big deal... (Score:2)
Not every box needs Apache (nor BIND, which is also part of OpenBSD's base system), but lots of them do, and I'm glad that the project has made them first class citizens.
Yes, you can take this too far ("Lots of people need MySQL!"), but if the OpenBSD project has the manpower to audit a certain amount of code we should let them do it, and Apache
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading through the Apache 2.0 license, I cannot find anything that is more restrictive than before. It's actually less restrictive in some areas, in an attempt to be compatible with the GPL. The two major differences are:
1) Legalese. The original BSD-like Apache license was quite loose in its wording. This scares the crap out of most corporate lawyers ("OMG, there's no clause imdemnifying us against jaywalking!"). So the new license has been tightened up with lawyer-friendly language.
2) Patent license. The old license was a copyright license. It didn't cover patents. The new one does. You're gaining rights as a user with this.
I really don't understand what OpenBSD's problem is with this. It's a free license. It's a "copycenter" license. It's unrestricted and unencumbered. I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:5, Informative)
GPL: OpenBSD does not consider the GPL to be a "free" license. Becoming more "GPL compatable" may be viewed as a benefit to the GNU and Linux people, but it is VERY much against the goal of the BSD projects. Restricting ANYONE'S use of a product is not a good thing in our mind.
1) "Legalese" is a bad thing. If you gotta get lawyers involved to understand it, it is bad. BY ITSELF, that's grounds for rejection.
2) When did software patents or anything regarding patents and software become a good thing (at least as commonly used)?
The new license is much longer and more complex. This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view).
The BSD license is very simple: Start with the basic rights of a copyright holder, and release ALL of them except the right to identified as the author, giving the USER FULL RIGHTS TO DO BASICLY ANYTHING WITH THE CODE other than claim/change authorship or sue for dammages.
Use it. Imbed it. Give it away. Sell it. With or without source code. WHATEVER. Now...add extra words to the license: HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY GET MORE FREE? Anything you add is "taking away" rights. Anything you do to "protect" yourself is again, taking away from the potential userbase of a product.
The point of the GPL seems to be to keep Open Source software from getting utilized by commercial software vendors. That's a noble goal -- you work for free, you want others to be able to enjoy your work for free. But, you are saying the CODE is free, not the useage of it.
The Point of the BSD license is to get the software USED in any sense of the word. BSD authors would prefer that their good software be USED in commercial products, rather than having the commercial vendors writing more flawed, or incompatable, or alternative protocols.
Do you think Cicso would have put a GPL'd SSH into their products? Probably not: they'd have done their own management application, which would only run on Windows machines or a few Unixes, or stuck with telnet. GPL advocates would probably say that was a "victory for freedom of the code", as the (hypothetical) GPL-SSH code wasn't used to make a profit by the evil Cisco. BSD advocates would prefer that the code be FREELY USED by ANYONE, including Cicso, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Intel, Motorola, IBM, and anyone else. Restricting ANYONE, no matter how "evil" they are perceived to be by someone is very much against the point of the BSD license.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a BSD advocate. The license is certainly longer, and in a way, that's bad because fewer people can understand it. But my understanding is that it is necessary. In the past we used licenses to tell other hackers that they had permission to use our software. But we are no longer a community of hackers, we now have lawsuit happy lawyers among us. When you have major lawyer-bound organization using (and contributing) to Apache, you can't hold on to the pollya
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:5, Interesting)
FOOL. The GPL does not restrict anyone from using GPL licensed code. It restricts the ability to hinder or encumber the code and that is the choice that users must make. BSD is free beer, certainly--no wonder corporations love to suck it up. GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not. You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is. I suggest that the GPL is far more important to software as a result. I don't care whether CISCO or whomever makes money--I care that quality code remains in the community. (AND note, they can equally well make money with GPL'd code--they only have to share back their modifications. Is that really asking too much?)
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.
See how it is restrictive now?
LGPL, that is a much less restrictive license.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
See how it is restrictive now?
Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point. As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your e
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, I didn't say anything that contradict your post. BSD and GPL are different licenses. I totally understand the different approaches.
One difference, though, is that you tend to discard BSD against GPL which is - to you - better. You have to understand that different people may think differently.
Las of all, one of your last statements: "Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?".
On that I w
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
I'm not sure exactly how I gave the impression that I don't realize that other people have different opinions than mine--I surely appreciate that as a somewhat obvious fact. I don't l
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the stagnating Apache the topic is about? The old Apache license was merely the BSD license with a trademark/advert clause.
Prepubescent Slashdot trolls like to joke about BSD dying, but the fact of the matter is that for the thirty year history of BSD licensed code, it has never once stagnated. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, all under the BSD license, are growing at a tremendous rate.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
That's true--but not nearly as fast as GPL'd code. As BSDers like to note, GPL code is viral, so it will undoubtedly grow faster as long as people find the values it ensures worthwhile for adoption.
You raise a good point though--the BSD is older t
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
I can think of several things:
a) Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
b) Be assured that improvements to the code are public
etc...
BSD is only more free for the first generation of users / developers then it gets less free.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
So redistributing BSD code isn't free? I don;t understand your point.
Be assured that improvements to the code are public
Well, that's not an impeachment for you. You are not coerced into anything here, you are not impeached or forced to do something.
My point was: As a human being, if you use/distribute/write/etc code with BSD license, you have TWO restrictions:
1. You HAVE TO leave the copyright notice where it is
2. You CANNOT declare yourself the author
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Under all those conditions:
a) First generation
b) exlusively BSD components
c) Wants to transform licenses
he has more freedom than the GPL.
That's far short of proving that the license is more free in general. Changes to either (a) or (b) make the GPL more free.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
You question my example, but so far I've been the only one to provide one. A little easy, if you want my inner feeling.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
a) Someone who is using SGIs, HO, Suns... X server (first gen code was MIT~BSD license). They have no freedom with it at all.
b) Someone using Windows NT
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Point A doesn't use BSD code, I fail to see how this is relevant. They can use first gen code and have full liberty with it, it's BSD. Or they can use gen 1234 of it which is not BSD and they have no liberty. So your first point proves that:
1. Using proprietary code is more restrictive than using BSD code. We knew that.
2. BSD code can be merged with proprietary code, without having that merged code being BSD. This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one m
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Anyway I think you should reread the thread. The point was examples where you had more freedom under GPL. If you are admitting you have more freedom you are conceeding the main point.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument.
My post: This doesn't remov
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
No one has any problems with that. I am a huge fan of the BSD license, and *I* have no problem with that.
The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own. You can fall under its restrictions by distribution completely original software. This is a restriction on us
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
You know Brandybuck, that was an unwarrented and unkind remark. Besides, the hallmark of western democracy is "freedom for all", whereas I am maintaining that the BSD hallmark is "freedom for me". I expected more from you based on your previous comments.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
I've always considered that a bit strange too. If a program is dynamically linked to a library, it doesn't contain any code from the library (just headers and references to the library). So why should c
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
The law doesn't regulate mechanism of linkage. The wrapper program would be useless without the library and hence is a derived work
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
That's not true. What they consider is that dynamic linkage should be treated no differently than static linkage. Static linkage in and of itself is not suffecient to create a derived work. For example there are open source versions of printf that have been linked into commercial programs. They are not derived works of those programs. Rather what is
Don't want GPLd code? Then write your own! (Score:3, Insightful)
The essence of GPL is this:
Yes, you can use other people's work, but then you'll have to contribute some work yourself.
If you just take other people's work without giving something bakc, you're just a THIEF!
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Informative)
This is false. Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal. However, if it is a product the company distributes, then yes, your code will need to be
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well. Now that doesn't mean you need to make it public. It just means you cannot distribute the resulting binary without offering to distribute the source code as well.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal.
Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Bullshit. The GPL is a distribution license. You can reject it, and you still have every right to use the software for whatever purpose you want, including private modifications. When you choose to distribute the software after rejecting the GPL, you then have only the rights given to you under default copyright law, which is to make a single archival copy that is to be destroyed when ownership
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
copyright law doesn't apply at all except when you make copies. All licenses act this way you aren't saying anything unusual here. New code is GPLed whether you distribute or not, its just that if you don't distribute it the GPL doesn't require you to do anything.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:3, Informative)
For all practical purposes, this is the SAME THING!
If I am writing an application for the purposes of distributing it, then a GPL library is restricting my ability to distribute it. Even if I distribute it within embedded hardware. This is radically different from the LGPL.
your code will need to be GPL compatible.
You've got it backwards. Any code that is considered to be "derivative" by licen
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Actually that's false. Linking to something would not come close to being enough to prove derivitive status. Better would be something like:
You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application written so that it is worthless unless it links to a librar
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
The issue with the BSD/LGPL licence is that you are more restrictive about releasing code under it because it is less restrictive. With it, people can take your work to make them profit, hell if they add enough value you may be paying to get a derivate of your own work.
The GPL is s
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of our disagreement here appears to over terms and usage. I think we've made our respective meanings clear...now readers get to decide for themselves which they prefer 8).
Hopefully we can also agree with this point: there are benefits and downsides to both BSD and GPL licenses -- the choic
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
Otherwise I think you are spot on. Let people decide for themselves is the best of
GPL & BSD- expanding body of work (Score:2)
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.
Framed this way, you can decide what your #1 goal is, then select that license.
Re:GPL & BSD- expanding body of work (Score:2, Insightful)
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.
That's an excellent way to put it, though I would rather put it as:
The GPL ensures expansion of the GPL body of work for everyone.
The BSD licence permits use of the code by anyone.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2, Insightful)
AC> This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.
AC> Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.
That's a bullshit counter-po
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
How is this different than, "Incorporating a small 100 line commercial routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app commercial".
BSD supporters seem to be OK with this model. A unified work pretty much takes on the restrictions of all of its parts.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
That's true. That's why the commerical stuff isn't allowed into OpenBSD.
If a company somewhere out there wants to maintain their own fork of a previously BSDL program, they can. But that has no impact at all on the BSDL version, which remains as free as it ever was.
Microsoft uses BSDL code in the NT network stack (strong evidence from observing the behaviour), but that hasn't had any impact on the BSDs. Their network stacks are
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
But of course it can. Or cannot, depending on your POV.
If I derive code from GPL code, and don't release it to anyone, then delete it, it has disappeared, right? (AFAIK, GPL is about distribution, so what you do with GPL software in privacy is nobody's business.)
You're right about one thing: t
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
Freedom to sell yourself into slavery is not "true freedom". But it is possible to dress it up as freedom.
And the BSD license which allows someone to release BSD code under a closed license isn't true freedom either - for exactly the same reason.
Handing out code withou
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:2)
The ISC liscense is a permisive license with no strings attached and covers both patents and copyrights (because you grant permission to DO THINGS, not a grant of a limited license).
The origial Apache liscense was very similar but added some advertising and attribution restrictions that generally have little or no cost. There are numerous problems with the new license including:
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time something like this comes up...he turns it into something good. His reputation grows, and the idea of quality software over Every Imaginable Feature spreads.
I doubt there will be an OpenBSD replacement for Apache. However, Theo knows one thing most people forget: you can whine and moan all you want, but when you accept the product, they win. However, if a few teams stand up and say, "This is NOT acceptable, we will NOT tollerate it", maybe something can change. XFree86 has managed to marginalize themselves, and convinced themselves that a whole lot of nothing:
http://www.xfree86.org/distro-support.html
const
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:1)
OpenBSD is definately more hardcore for keeping code free, that's why they don't accept the GPL, it's not free enough for them.
Re:No posts thus far - an omen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Couple that with their habit of doing things differently from everyone else just once in a while to keep track of who's watching, and you have a winner.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Informative)
Theo makes his living by selling packaged OpenBSD install disks (with CVS checkouts of the source, precompiled packages, etc.). The fact that he sells OpenBSD to pay his bills doesn't make it any less free then RedHat selling Linux.
Also if you want to use a CD based install, try here [openbsd.org].
Re:Bah (Score:1, Informative)
Note that this link is for booting and loading install/upgrade program only. You can go on with a network install from it. CD's layout are copyrighted by Theo de Raadt. You can, however, download and make your own bootable CD.
Re:boggle (Score:1, Insightful)
Truly free software can't exist in a market economy that treats software as property. GNU implements a free market in which software can not be bought and traded like "real" property, but it has to use the existing copyright laws to do so, otherwise anyone could change a few lines and release non-free software. Remember, software is not Free if all you get is the binary, with no right to redistribute it.
Re:boggle (Score:1)
Re:boggle (Score:2, Insightful)
OpenBSD doesn't like the GPL, it is infact replacing all the GPL code in the base system with BSD varients (diff, gzip, awk and others).
Your comment is out of place here, Apache being GPL incompatible had nothing to do with OpenBSD rejecting it, it was that the license is OpenBSD incompatible. Free as in free.
Re:boggle (Score:1)
Re:boggle (Score:1)
And what was being discussed? You were a reply to the story, therefore nothing was being discussed, you started a discussion by making a post that had no relevence to the article.
Re:boggle (Score:1)
Re:boggle (Score:1)
Re:boggle (Score:1)