Making a new BSD

Seeing this endless discussion over BSD vs GPL I had the idea of making a BSD OS transition to GPL, this way nobody can say the BSD community is supporting just its license. Which BSD would you GPL?
NetBSD
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
LibertyBSD

Other urls found in this thread:

vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob
openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#WhatIs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

why not LibertyBSD? it's already stripped of proprietary blobs

>this way nobody can say the BSD community is supporting just its license

What a great reason for such a huge job. You sure are going to show them!

i'll make the logo! :--]

Crossed my mind. Saw LibertyBSD mentioned on Sup Forums and though it would add more people to this, was a perfect opportunity.

But putting a license is not a lot of work, also to be updated from upstream with new code won't be neither. Remember what a fork is.

What exactly is the point? Your fork will use GPL but if someone wants to use the code and close the source they'll just fork the original BSD themselves? Am I missing something here?

>GPL-licensed BSD
no

Can't we leave the license argument behind and join together for once?

I don't have a problem with either license. Wouldn't this project just do the opposite? Instead of joining forces, it'd just create another unnecessary alternative.

>wants to relicense BSD-licensed software to GPL
>AND avoid a license war

It should be obvious is going to do the opposite of what you say. Relax.

Forgot to add – if you produce code to your fork, the BSD project can't benefit from it because you've GPL'd the code and Linux is unlikely to benefit from it as you're creating a BSD. In other words, nobody benefits.

>BSD OS transition to GPL

why the fuck would you do that?

Don't be so fearful of change. The important thing is the OS, not the license. The community is not supporting BSD because of its license.

>the license isn't important

>The community is not supporting BSD
sauce? fucking bait

BSD is for cucks, enjoy your cuck license

...

Enjoy your stale meme

I know your comment is bait, but I am worried this resistance is rooted.

Being such a badass programmer that you let anyone do anything
they want with your chad code is cucked, I bet you are a fat, fedora
wearing faggot.

How the hell is this relicensing supposed to work? You just fork the existing project and rewrite license to GPL? But noone needs to obey your GPLd fork because they can use the old ISC version?

Loonix GPL freetards please stay away from BSD.

Your BSD is shit and you know it.

...

Not a argument

retard

Is that all you have to say? Then leave.

no, actually I'm gonna stay here and whisper to your ear the whole night "BSD, BSD, BSD..."

Don't start a flamewar here.

Good cucks, let the bull fuck your code hard while you prep him nice and well by programming for free.

Nothing wrong on the idea.

I don't care about the license. The BSD license has it's purposes.
I won't ever use BSD again, because I already tried it and it's fucking garbage. Stop shilling fucking garbage.

...

You cannot change the license on code you did not create. Whatever is BSD licensed must remain under the BSD license unless the original author gives their permission to change the license. BSD and GPL are compatible in that you can combine BSD licensed software with software that is GPL licensed but the BSD license remains attached to the code, you just attach the GPL license to the code as well.

Congrats, you just realized what we are trying to do, or do you?

I have no idea what you're trying to do. You will not get the original authors to sign off on relicensing their code to something more restrictive and as long as the BSD license remains attached there's no reason anyone would bother with the GPL license.

Read the OP again and stop making such a fuss.

I want to see this happen. Is there a place in mind to host it? Even github would be cool.

Liberty is just a respin of OpenBSD, you idiot.

>tfw your a bsd developer and apple comes along, steals your ultimitivly-free software, jails it into a walled garden and gets rich
hey that really worked out!

>choose to license your software under a license that permits companies to use your software
>companies do exactly that
>WAAH THEY'RE STEALING MUH CODE

GNU/dad

loonix zealots think they need to protect BSD code from companies stealing it, geezes what a bunch of retards

Except Apple has tons of original development. So they copied coreutils and network stack, wow, much cuckery.

Retarded Idea. Why the fuck would you bother to do this?
How retarded do you have to be to think of this?
I seriously can not comprehend you thought process here, you take a free (as in BSD not """free""" as in GPL) OS then put a more restrictive license on it and expect that anyone cares?
Why would you do this? What problem do you solve?

Aside from forking an OS and removing one of its most important "selling" points what did you do here.

GPL and BSD licenses both have very valid reasons to exists (although only the BSD one can call itself free) why would even attempt your retarded idea?

Only if you are insane.

Yes, it did work out.
Exactly what everyone wanted to happen happened.

cause they need to protect muh freedoms, kek

What?

>tfw ur OS is shit so you pounce on another OS and give it a commie license

>tfw u want to "unify" the communities by helping neither

>tfw u tell urself ur coding / compiling to help the community but you're actually seeking acclaim and attention by GPL'ing your code so your name will always be mentioned and code never close sourced

>tfw u don't actually contribute anything to the project, so the big evil companies will just for the BSD-licensed code you forked to GPL

>tfw u make attention seeking threads on github and on your blog and social media instead of coding and helping out trying to make yourself relevant and noticed

literally 99% of todays open source "devs"

none because bsd doesn't need gpl.

retarded idea, from a retard, on a board with a rate of 98% retards

Now that's just mean. And a little selfish, considering the fact that the board has ~100 users.

That being said, OP is a retard.
>let's make a BSD in which the BSD community won't have any interest
>let's use a licence, which community has no interest in the operating system we're creating
Even TempleOS has more users than this shit will ever have.

Don't rush to say this won't find users because I've seen this happen with other OS. It gets popular once the idea has a solid ground.

All the assblasted bigots arguing for "muh BSD license" are the very reason OP's idea has to happen.

Why are you trying to piss off the devs when the software is already gratis and open source? Just don't use it if you don't like the licensing. But if you had to pick one then go with OpenBSD. It's the best BSD.

Why not LibertyBSD lika has been suggested multiple times? OpenBSD is a good option but might as well go full libre.

it's already more libre than GPL, retarded?

I mean free of binary blob, dumbass?

You cannot license BSD code under GPL.
You can include BSD code in proprietary licenses but not under GPL, because GPL is too restrictive.

...

he thinks his HW has no binary blobs, the lunatic obsession is real

You can include BSD licensed code under GPL, are you retarded?

kek

trips of truth

he doesn't go to driver companies advocating open source instead he wants to change license of operating system, true retard

Except he is wrong.

LGPL but not GPL3, am I wrong?

Still wrong, not sure why this confusion when the GPL is supposed to be the more restrictive license and still allows integrating BSD code. What part of that is hard to understand?

LibertyBSD is literally just install script and package mask for OpenBSD. It has no development, just deletes few things that makes the list of supported hardware even shorter and makes delay from upstream. Why would you want that.

>Because if I take GPL code fork it and write my own code that code will get GPL'ed, you cannot GPL BSD code. Code cannot be GPL and BSD at the same time. I can't fork GPL code and say they code I add to this project shall be BSD.

Sshhhh, don't let they hear you ;^)

>firmware companies
ftfy

Who are you quoting this wordplay? It doesn't even say conversion can happen, it just bigotry and excuses.

Is FreeBSD an option? Not sure how much can be changed but sounds interesting.

bsd is only not a shitshow like linux because they are not full of sjw code monkeys.

go fuck yourself and destroy another project and leave bsd alone

NO, FreeBSD is shit use OpenBSD instead is better. FreeBSD has lame security, get it right.

shilling for obsd this hard, been running fbsd for years not a single problem

FreeBSD is lacking in security and you know, OpenBSD is superior, everybody knows that.

vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt
:^)

Hard to say, some thing are ported form Solaris systems (e.g. OpenZFS) and might not have trivial licensing.

CDDL was a mistake.

This entire thread is some grade-A bait.

netbsd, as it is the best bsd

My man. The package manager is underrated.

Hello TJ.

except that one time where they didn't have package signing for 20 years and were on the same level of security as arch

nigga you aren't using freebsd, you are just larping, fuck off

>shilling for freebsd
Hi CISCO

>OpenBSD is a good option but might as well go full libre.
It is.

OpenBSD is binary blob free. Whether or not your hardware is is up to you.

Know why you can GPL BSD code? Because the BSD license allows it. Guess why you can't BSD-license GPLed code.

>OpenBSD is binary blob free
[ CITATION NEEDED ]

See

I knew about ZFS but what other things came from Solaris?

Superior in what way, exactly?

Can't be ease of use for a UNIX retard like me (had a go at it in a VM) as I couldn't figure out how to enable doas even after reading a couple of manpages; I'm sure it's a good OS for intermediate/experienced users who know their way around UNIX though.

The ports are often outdated and or abandoned which doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to FreshPorts (more users and all that).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob
>The OpenBSD project has a notable policy of not accepting any binary device drivers into its source tree (however, OpenBSD distributes firmware blobs), citing not only the potential for undetectable or irreparable security flaws, but also the encroachment onto the openness and freedom of its software.[8] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is actively campaigning against binary blobs.[9] It also considers OpenBSD's policy confusingly worded, as "blobs" in the BSD community refer to what it considers non-free drivers, and not non-free firmware.

>for freebsd
not only can you not read, you also have no idea about things being talked about.

classic fa/g/got, now go post in a mkb or desktop thread

openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#WhatIs
>OpenBSD is a full-featured UNIX-like operating system available in source and binary form at no charge.
translation for retarded fa/g/gots: available in source means, no blobs

I think NetBSD has more updated packages and is easier, might be wrong.

Then why is LibertyBSD a thing?