|
|
|
|
|
|
by oneanddone
2804 days ago
|
|
|
BSD user here. Of course there is porting occurring, but this is the nature of open source, is it not? Oftentimes, the BSD devs will take whatever hardware specs they can get and code something from that. OpenBSD frequently writes drivers that are orders of magnitude smaller than comparable Linux drivers, while getting the same functionality. NVIDIA drivers are but one example. Some hardware vendors are generous with hardware specs for OSS, most are not. OpenBSD, as an example, will not have any GPL'd code in the base OS, as it's not truly free. Ports are another issue. |
|
|
That's a disingenuous way to put it. The GPL is a free software license. It is "free" as in libre by all common definitions of "free" in regards to software.
The GPL is not compatible with the BSD dev's preferred license, which is much more likely the reason they avoid using such code.
By all conventional definitions, the BSD and GPL licenses are "truly free [software licenses]."
You're welcome to argue that the BSD license is better (because, for example, it lets sony create derivative playstation OSs without providing that source code to their users, ensuring their users have less freedom than if it were linux) or that the GPL is better (because it would prevent the previous), but they're both free licenses.