[nycbug-talk] Meeting Feeler: Non-BSD projects Using BSD software
matthewstory at gmail.com
Mon Mar 12 12:21:10 EDT 2012
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru at gmail.com>wrote:
> The Apache v2 license is a BSD style one. Our shop is a very high %
> apache software. I am not sure if you want to count that.
My focus here was intended to be more on software produced by *BSD projects
(such as the FreeBSD SMPng kernel, NetBSD Almquist shell, or more
generally the POSIX 2008.1 compliant-ish shell and utilities user-land),
and how portions of *BSD OSes can be usefully incorporated into other
systems to the benefit of all. I think that Apache licensed software is
useful fodder for discussion, but not for a *BSD User Group necessarily
(unless it's software created by|for *BSD projects that happens to make use
of an Apache license).
While I will continue to run FreeBSD personally, and very much like the
fact that it is a complete OS, with a coherent and non-political objective
... as a system, I think that *BSD projects could benefit from encouraging
those who are interested in running components of this system (either
kernel or userland) married with other components. Conversely, I think
those involved with other projects could benefit greatly by marrying
portions of *BSD systems into their own systems.
I am interested in what we can do as a *BSD User Group to facilitate this
dialogue (assuming that this dialogue is useful, of course).
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Matthew Story <matthewstory at gmail.com>
> > Wanted to put out a feeler about doing some meetings on the benefits and
> > pitfalls of porting *BSD software to non-BSD systems. And the various
> > reasons why projects choose to do this, or to support alternate
> > distributions of their software that provide optional *BSD software.
> > There seem to me to be a variety of reasons for a project to do this:
> > 1. Quality of software (including better maintenance)
> > 2. Preference
> > 3. Politics (e.g. getting away from GNU GPLv3 ... or worse the AGPLv3)
> > A few examples come to mind immediately to me, all of which are Debian
> > based:
> > 1. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD Port -- http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/
> > * GNU userland + glibc on top of the FreeBSD kernel instead of
> > 2. dash -- http://wiki.debian.org/DashAsBinSh
> > * debian extension of the NetBSD Almquist Shell
> > With several projects taking a stand aginst GPLv3 (most notably Linus'
> > refusal to move Linux to GPLv3, but also Debian DFSG ruling on DFDL, etc)
That should read DFSG ruling on GFDL (Debian Free Software Guideline and
Gnu Free Documentation License respectively).
> >, I would be interested in how we make components of the *BSD OSes viable
> > alternatives for other projects, and how we as a community of users can
> > get those in search of GNU-replacements interacting and improving the
> > software that we all use every day.
> > So, anyone interested in a Meeting on dash, (or the ash port to Linux),
> > Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? And what are the major barriers to adoption of *BSD
> > components by other projects to create GNU-free OSes? It seems an
> > inevitability that this will happen at some point, as the GNU project
> > continues to fragment itself further and further from anyone trying to do
> > work with any potential commercial application.
> > --
> > regards,
> > matt
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at lists.nycbug.org
> > http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk