[nycbug-talk] Meeting Feeler: Non-BSD projects Using BSD software

[Matthew Story]

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>
> wrote:
> > 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
> Linux
> > 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
> help
> > 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),
> or
> > 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
> >
>



-- 
regards,
matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.nycbug.org:8443/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120312/99e8b928/attachment.htm>