@@rethardotv5874it sucks for people who care about the health and growth of the upstream project. The MIT license doesn't require contributing modifications back to upstream so most people don't. Thus, it is easy for fragmentation to happen and for the mainline version of the code to become stagnant unless their is some organization behind it providing new features. Really, a viral license like GPL is best if you want to promote community given GROWTH of a project whereas MIT (or BSD) is best if you have an organization that still intends to drive the code but want to share it for free - or, alternatively, you have a project that is already "dead" and you just want to share it with the world.
I feel its important to point out Darwin and by extension MacOS has only ever had a FreeBSD based userland. The Kernel is entirely from the NEXT acquisition it is the Mach Kernel.
Many companies have been using FreeBSD instead of Linux to build their products for decades because of the license terms, and have professional engineers with intimidate knowledge of the system. Fixes and enhancements make their way back to the base system one way or another because it’s a lot easier than maintaining an internal fork. It isn’t always public knowledge because many companies don’t want their competitors knowing what they are doing, or how they do it.
It used to be the case that BSD licensed code was used on more devices than any other license because the IP stack that was used on virtually all network connected devices was BSD code.
I’ve heard conflicting information on that. I heard that Horizon (the Switch’s OS) is actually bespoke and only uses specific code derived from BSD for specific components (such as the network stack) rather than being built on FreeBSD itself.
Isn't the BSD license pretty similar to the MIT? They can use it commercially without contributing changes but they need to acknowledge that they used it.
Yeah, for most of the BSD/MIT licenses there are clauses stating that regardless of release as source or binary, usage of software licensed under one of those BSD/MIT licenses requires attribution. However... There is now a 0 clause license, which does not require attribution. I'm not sure what is actually released under that license though, as far as OSS OS. Been using the BSD's for 25 years and not really kept up to date with what uses which version of these licenses. LOL
It is, and the BSD license is what FreeBSD uses, not the MIT license (no idea where titus got that from). It literally says that 1. you have to redistribute your code with the BSD license, and 2. there's no warranty, but you can use it any way you want.
@@Felix-ve9hs "It literally says that 1. you have to *_redistribute_* *_your_* *_code_* *_with_* *_the_* *_BSD_* *_license"_* No, it doesn't... 1. Redistributions of source code *_must_* *_retain_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form *_must_* *_reproduce_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. You must provide attribution under this license, but *_NOT_* code.
@@joshallen128 On a PS5 for example... Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
Got to go PC, takes more work and money to get PC to give you that consoled experience, but it is worth it. I haven't owned a new console since the Xbox 360
Yeah the canoe GPL is toxic to Microsoft because their business is selling products like Windows and services like office 365 which is why they won't touch the agpl the new GPL. The only touch stuff they can add directly into their proprietary systems.
@@vicsar you obviously care otherwise you'd just release it into the public domain that way you dont try to go after license violators forgetting to put in your attribution
I never owned any Playstation, but I thought the biggest problem people had with Sony and Playstations was the time they disabled the Other OS feature on PS 3. More recently they almost took away TV shows that people thought they had "bought".
@@CJ123for cross compiling hell yeah, especially the zig build tooling has been amazing for me. But for speed, gcc all the way, nothing tears through C code like gcc. Its just such a hassle to work with imo.
Apple is the last true BSD workstation but Apple come from earlier BSD and had Unix's code probably so for avoiding being sue it got the Unix's license... MacOS is OLDER than FreeBSD.
BSD license is not MIT (though practically the same). Many companies that use FreeBSD (like Apple) rather people not know what code they are contributing back so there is a assumption that they just take and don't give.
Netflix is pretty much keeping BSD alive. And i guess Sony, but BSD needs devs badly since everyone's using Linux. Especially for the future of BSD firewalls.
the reason why BSD is alive is because of BSD developers, that being FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD. I have AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, illumos, *BSD servers everywhere, and I can assure you that "everyone's using Linux" is just a marketing thing.
@@AntranigVartanian just because you use it doesn't mean it's very abundant. Even the military primarily uses Linux and few firewalls really use BSD anymore, they're mainly using Linux forks. BSD is hard to beat in terms of stability and security but they failed abysmally trying to implement Docker/containerization to stay relevant in the space and the dev forums kinda dried up not too long after that. You can ingest the copium if you want but just like a lot of open source these days, it's struggling
@@alienJIZ1990 "failed abysmally trying to implement Docker/containerization" you do realize that BSD and FreeBSD were the original creators of containers, right? Docker is not the only container technology out there. Again, marketing != engineering.
@@AntranigVartanian yeah Jails exist but you're not looking at it from a management and business perspective. Marketing matters, the more popular the tools become, the more people know how to manage them. It's a lot easier and cheaper and scalable to find guys who can manage Docker, Kubernetes, Linux in general, etc. than it is to find specialized guys who can manage BSD distros correctly. Market dominance is absolutely a factor
I've developed quite a lot of open source code under the more permissive licenses, like the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. I can say that I've never expected users of that code to contribute back to it. If they do, that's great, but I chose those licenses for a reason. Sony can do as it pleases, as did Apple. It's a testament to the FreeBSD code base that companies would want to use that as a foundation for their products, and I have to imagine the FreeBSD developers are proud of that.
It is all about the license. If the license allows it, you can do whatever you want with that piece of code/software. I didn't know anyone was really talking about Sony abusing FreeBSD, tbh. Kinda surprising that someone would know about the existence of FreeBSD but not understand how its license works 🤷♂ As an aside, FreeBSD uses the 2-clause BSD license afaik, not the MIT license. While MIT is very popular amongst open-source software enthusiasts, I only know of two major pieces of software that use an MIT-derived license - zsh and X11.
There's some portion of the Linux users that take that line. The reality tends to be more muddied due to how expensive it can be to maintain a fork just to avoid having to give anything back. The great thing about opensource is that even if a company is truly giving nothing back, it costs the project basically nothing. And as long as enough other folks are giving, the project can continue to exist.
Nope, the BSD license was specifically made so you could make a profit from it, Contrary to the GPL license Richard Stallman create because he didn't like the MIT license. BSD is not Linux lol.
There are no "complexities" of Sony using FreeBSD code. They're free to do so without contributing back and without giving "credit"; all they are obligated to do is duplicate the copyright notice. This is not theft. This is not abuse. The license allowing this is a conscious choice by the project and it's contributors. I license all my open source projects with BSD or MIT.
See this is why I watch Chris. He is willing to admit when his assumptions are shown to be wrong and then explains how he was wrong. When he is right he explains why it is bad.
@@michaelheimbrand5424 Yeah, freedom to Abuse. Freedom to exploit. Freedom to steal. The central pillars of American kind of freedom. You are free to rob, but not free to lead an honest life.
We don't wine whine when corporations do that, we celebrate when they use FreeBSD. And why allow that in the first place? well, there's a 40 year old history behind that.
That is good, I am using FreeBSD as a backup storage server at home. My 2nd NAS in other words, I decided to run FreeBSD to have something that was a different ecosystem from ZFS On Linux that runs the rest and my other NAS. If one breaks, I have the 2nd one to run.
TL:DR. BSD is THE Grandfather platform for Modern high-performance computing. BSD is THE "almost-operating system" that the world has relied on. It's no surprise Sony would use it as a platform, it makes utter sense. Why not use a robust, tried, tested vetted and secure base system, having been improved on, over the span of 40+ years? Unix has strong "do's and dont's" and if you wanted functionality, you had to code it and have that code scrutinized by everyone and then some. Too much to go into. But if you wrote code for 1+1=10 (bin), it would be scrutinized on how you got there, what registers were used, and if there was a way to do it better and faster (and today, more securely). and THAT is why BSD works as well as it does. Imagine if Boeing (yikes, I know) only ever built 1 aircraft, and the iterations thereof only added stable, reliable, mature and robust technological features. not more comfy seats, not in-air entertainment, just raw-metal and flight control and speed improvements. No Microwave ovens, no in-flight facilities, just utter, secure reliability. Imagine aviation having other Aircraft like a Gulfstream, but their Pilots keep saying, "yeah, but it's still not a Boeing". "Yeah, that's a nice lighter, but it's still not a Zippo". BSD simply works, and it's good to get companies to give back to the real Alpha-God-nerds that merely want a tiny thank-you and more hardware to carry on making BSD better, not fancier, or prettier, just better. True Altruism.
Thanks for telling us about this, I had no idea Sony and Nintendo Switch use freebsd. It is too bad FreeBSD isn't upto to par to Linux Desktop distros for newer hardware drivers, etc...I was considering trying it out; but not sure 100% yet.
My desktop machine is an iMac 27" that runs OpenBSD. When it comes to laptops I use OpenBSD on Thinkpads. By far the most stable laptop/power management experience I've seen. You can do it to.
Another case I can remember a company abusing the GPL license is Korg with their OASYS, Kronos and most likely Nautilus workstations. Inside the Kronos and Nautilus, you're gonna find a Mini-ITX motherboard with an embedded Intel Atom (Nautilus uses an ASRock Industrial motherboard with some ports removed). They use a modified Linux kernel with RTAI extensions along with some other bits of proprietary code. Afaik, no one went after them or reported that. I think they provide that bit of source code in the recovery discs that come with the unit, but you have to buy the workstation to have access to them and they distribute those modifications as a binary Linux. Any attempts to make those modifications public have been met with a Cease and Desist from the company. Yamaha uses MontaVista Linux on all their current workstations, but they do mention that in their product pages and you can find said modifications for download.
The early OASyS's were using such a small kernel to basically boot into their proprietary software, I think they avoided the GPL issue by not distributing that. I'm not much of an expert on the legal side.
I really liked this video and how honestly you're taking about it. Btw cool background but having it move constantly is a bit disorienting, perhaps have it move a few short times during the video?
Some might be surprised to know that some enterprise storage vendors use FreeBSD two big ones are Dell/EMC Isilon (now called Powerscale) uses FreeBSD with the custom OneFS clustered filesystem; Dell stopped advertising what version of FreeBSD its based off of. Netapp Clustered Data ONTAP uses FreeBSD with there own custom raid tech and filesystem (WAFL aka Write Anywhere File Layer)
Part of the motivation for companies like sony to upload some of the code upsource is that it is easier for their own development. It makes sense. As long as they don't give an advantage to their competitors they don't mind other people using that code too if it makes their own workflow easier. In regard to the PS5, Chris, just look quickly at both the PS5 and the latest XBox and notice how the XBox has nice holes for airflow while the PS5 has a lot of decorative plastic on top. Just based on that alone I would have more confidence in the XBox surviving. Function over form for hardware.
Out of all the things I've read today, this is the dumbest. Consoles aren't cooled by convection. They're cooled by fans. You don't need holes on the top for hot air to escape
@@Rainsoakedcoat Of all thet things I've read today, this is by far the dumbest. With holes more air will get out than with a lot of plastic, fans don't magically push that air through that plastic. A lot of PS5's went broken early, just because you like to play on a PS5 doesn't make the box a good design. This round was won by Microsoft, in regard to the hardware.
4:01 The reason they probably don’t want people to know is because of the culture in Japan. They’re very humble and you are taught not to take credit for things, even if you do something deserving of credit.
I think that companies using open source software wether or not they are taking advantage is always good. Hear me out. If these companies start converting to open source than it will force people in the tech world to need to learn and use open source. The more space taken up by open source the more prevalent open source will be.
Here my 2 cents: the GPL-license is better than the FreeBSD-license because the first allows anyone to use the code and simply uses the principle of reciprocity: if this code helps you out, great, but if you change the code then you keep it open source because other people might get helped out by that. Simple and just. The FreeBSD-license also aims to help people by sharing the code but allows companies to close-source it after changing it, so there is no reciprocity, it is not as just. Of course companies like Sony love it that they can keep the code a secret after using the work of all the people who opensourced the core of their code, they love it that they don't have to give back. Some of these companies might give back to some extend but that is not necessarily the case. Does Sony abuse FreeBSD? Legally not, we can argue about them morally abusing it.
There is also a counter-argument. If you do not contribute to FreeBSD, you get technical debt because your patches add up and never make it upstream. If you send all your patches upstream and integrate them into FreeBSD, the workload is much less, and the community does most of the work for you. Sony's unwillingness to contribute literally causes them a lot of work, money, and developer time that could be spent elsewhere.
@@hoi-polloi1863 That is true but how is that relevant? The GPL-license is not about having to contribute, it is about having to contribute if you extend the code.
If you think about what companies pay to their employees and what they keep as profit, all companies get much more than they pay for, not only in this particular case
Here's the difference between BSD and GPL. BSD: "Here, take this code, I wrote it out of the goodness of my heart. Oh, you're using it on 117 million consoles around the world?! Awesome!!" GPL: "Here, take this code, I wrote it out of the goodness of my heart. Oh, you're making a profit from it? To hell with the goodness of my heart, I want my cut!" Ultimately, if you put source code out into the wild under an open source license, and you don't explicitly state "not for commercial use", you can't then get hurt or even call it "stealing" when a corporation uses it.
2:06 Most of the BSD/MIT licenses have clauses requiring attribution. There is a 0 clause license, but not everything released under these licenses is licensed under that 0 clause license. Note, on a PS5 for example... Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
The GPL is a bit like if you ask your dad if you can loan your friend a toy, and he says "Make sure he brings it back nicer than you gave it to him." The BSD License is more like your dad says "Sure whatever, its your toy."
nah, linux was just more popular in the day because BSD was still under legal trouble with the owners of Unix. Linux was built from scratch which allowed common consumers and industry to start adopting it sooner. Even then Linus disliked where GPL was heading and really only wanted people to contribute back to the code, which is why he stuck with v2.
@@kenneth_romero he had no problem with hardware vendors out there except nvidia, but even if linux kernel had went to GPLv3 then a major schism would have happened and i guess a fork of the linux kernel would have occured named maybe freax from the early days
Glad to see this being addressed. While people like to talk about big tech profiting off of the hard work of open source devs, and there are many examples of this to be fair, the truth is many companies contribute quite a bit to open source.
Copying is never stealing, unless you mean to say stealing credit. BSD isn't being deprived of something they previously had when anyone copies their code under any circumstances. Calling copying "stealing" is hyperbolic mischaracterization that leads to all sorts of wrong-headed thinking and wasted energy.
Wish there had been a prompt to skip the intro if you know approximately how the MIT license works. Excited for the rest of the vid but the first two minutes aren't "for me" but im glad you included it for others.
i'd say this: every major software corporation is abusing open source. that's the whole point of "free" market capitalism: you socialize the risks & expenses, privatize the results. the mechanism of this expense socialization can change: before 1970s the expenses of communications & IT were socialized via government research that was essentially privatized for near-zero price, now it's socialized via open-source usage, in the coming decades it will be probably socialized via spyware and LLMs. It doesn't mean that companies never reinvest in society (many of them clearly do), but they never reinvest the full price (the delta is the profit), or it wouldn't be capitalism.
The developers of FreeBSD decided to use a license that allows anyone to make anything with it, so it’s fine if anyone makes anything with it, even if that thing is proprietary.
FreeBSD isn’t open source it’s the GNU license and you’re allowed to sell a product as long as your give credit to BSD. Free software means you’re free to do with it as you chose including sell a closed source version
the big thing a lot of people miss is that there are three questions 1 : justified legality 2 : justified morally 3 : ought to be justified legally Calling a random person on the street a dickhead is legal, not moral, and should be legal. (unprovoked once-off insults aren't harassment, it's just being a dick) Breaking into someone's house is not legal, not moral, and should not be legal. If you go back and time slavery was legal, was not moral, and should not have been legal. Posting spicy memes is increasingly illegal, debatably moral, but should be flatly legal as it doesn't affect anyone. Stopping in to stop someone from killing someone else can actually be illegal depending on the exact laws and circumstance, but it's entirely moral and should be legal. The point though is that it's not just "yeah this is legal *_technically,_* but it's still immoral" because the MIT specifically exists to guarantee that third category. The only reason you license anything under a permissive license is because you, as the developer, are saying "anyone can use this, whether I like it or not". That also more or less nullifies the second category because the developers explicitly chose to allow anyone to use it even if they wouldn't have liked to give permission. The entire thing around "X company is just abusing open source!" is 99/100 times just used as a way to polarize people into "BIG COMPANY BAD" blind hatred, without actually saying anything substantive. Unless you genuinely want to do something insane like ban permissive licensing because you think it's for developers' "own good" to stop them from licensing their work permissively, the only conclusion even the worst cases can come to is "It's legal, it should be legal, there is no solid moral basis to condemn it on, but I just find it personally icky and would like if they gave more back" which isn't really, well, anything. Worse than that however, it doesn't even really achieve the desired goal since the best way to get companies to contribute back isn't by saying "y'know I reaaaaally wish you would though" it's to give reasons why it's beneficial from a business perspective to do so. So, ironically, making the discussion all about personal objections regarding the entirely subjective percieved morality of it as opposed to the hard realities is actually directing the conversation *_away_* from what could actually lead to more contribution. We saw the same exact sort of blind frenzied hatred and righteous indignation around 'live service games' where it practically turned into a slur, then Helldivers 2 releases and suuuuuudenly "no no, they're not *_all_* bad, Helldivers 2 is just one of the good ones". Instead of looking at what the games actually were and analyzing how to make them better, people jujst got a pithy name to pin it under and started using it as a self-defined derogatory. The same thing happens in the opposite direction, "RIGHT TO REPAIR" is a lot more common than looking at how repairability factors into the balance between value and profitability which must underpin any stable system. For instance, not being easily repairable means that indirect revenue from the product increases, buuuuuuut that also means that for equivalent profit the company can sell the product at a lower price (directional causality is really impossible to establish here, both directions are equally as valid, 2+2*2 == 2*2+2, one doesn't imply the other they just *_are_* equal) so a responsible owner that keeps their device undamaged ends up paying less for the same experience. By the same token since it's more expensive to repair them, high quality devices are going to be less common in the second hand market and go for more, so that responsible owner can actually get an even *_lower_* price factoring in reselling later. It can't be simplified to "BIG COMPANY BAD", yet that's exactly what a lot of these conversations explicitly try to do.
No, FreeBSD has chosen to distribute the operating system under the BSD licence. It's their own decision and choice to use a permissive licence rather than a copyleft licence.
It’s not abuse. They act in accordance to the license. If you ‘expect’ something in return, don’t hate Sony. Hate FreeBSD for not using another license.
FOSS nerds really need to come to terms with the fact that without contributions from [Insert EVIL corporate conglomerate here] the Open Source landscape would be a bit more sparse than it already is.
OMG I'm fed up with FOSS enthusiasts making meme Pikachu faces when they realise their favourite free and open source software is being freely used by big corporations. Don't make or use FOSS if you hate the concept of it being freely available.
This is the kind of hypocrisy and pettiness I've seen in several opensource projects. People want the accolades, support, and possibly donations that comes with something being opensource, but then when that source starts being used in another project or someone starts making money off it, they suddenly start shouting 'it's not fair' ,or 'where's my cut?'. I saw this with the Mypal web browser for Windows XP. It was originally based on the Palemoon browser, but when the developer(s) of that project started getting angry Mypal was using their project as a base, the Mypal developer almost quit. Mypal has switched to a Firefox base for their future versions, but still, this isn't how opensource is supposed to work. If you don't want your code being used by someone else like this, then don't make it open source, or at the very least, come up with a different license that excludes certain uses. I'm not against anyone getting compensation for their work, but opensource comes with its own set of rules. If you aren't willing to abide by those rules as a dev or user, then don't use opensource. There are plenty of closed source alternatives out there.
I don't know PS games system work, but I think the games were compiled and coded specifically for PS systems, that's probably why there is quite some difference between PC and PS games, be it gameplay or quality.
NetBSD with the Darwin/MACH XNU Kernel. Some of the Userland was from FreeBSD in the PowerPC/Intel days but that has changed over the last few years with ARM.
The world is richer for Open Source being what it is and Free software being what it is. Both paradigms have their uses, when you start a new project be careful what you choose. Linux desktops are great because of the GPL. Indie games are great because you can use open source like MonoGame or Godot, the industry would be worse off if you were forced to write from scratch, go fully GPL or go with Unity/Unreal.
That's very interesting. Either way, it is their right to use and redistribute the software in whatever way they want. That's in the license agreement, but also that's part of the spirit of free/open source. The only way to stop it would be to make the license agreement force Sony to act differently by using their software. Which is anti-freedom
sony is up-to something ....since they knew what steam is doing with linux and now sony want to help freebsd community by uploading new code for freebsd users on how to run dx12 games on freebsd
This is the FreeBSD economy. Credits is all it requires. It's not copyleft like GPL for Linux kernal and GNU. But even if Sony's Playstation used Linux, Sony would only have to open source whatever it had modified of Linux kernel and GNU, amirite? It could keep its own user apps closed source. FreeBSD, however, can't pull anything GPL into itself without putting restrictions on the MIT license. That's the price FreeBSD has to pay.
It's amazing we have BSD licensed so liberally and some pretty good variants being Free, Open and Net. They are similar and different to Linux. I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2. I like how userland and kernel are distributed together. I like how you can use packages and ports to install software. Things that aren't as good is the vilume of information compared to Linux. Also hardware support is not quite the same level as Linux. If you're keen give it an install.
1:45 You can use GPL source code in your project and absolutely NOT release YOUR code for your project, *_as_* *_long_* *_as_* *_your_* *_code_* *_is_* *_not_* *_a_* *_modification_* *_of_* *_any_* *_of_* *_the_* *_GPL'ed_* *_code._* When people request a copy of the GPL code you've used in your project, you then only give over the unchanged GPL code that you used and not your own code. This is VERY restrictive in what you can do with your project, however, so if you want total freedom to use an OSS OS, to change it as you like to your needs without needing to release your code changes... then BSD/MIT licence for the win!
Not really. Even if your code interfaces with an entirely separate executable that is GPL licensed, it is still unclear if your other code is free from obligation. This is where the LGPL comes in, as it specifically exists to make it possible to have LGPL code in a dynamically linked library that can be referenced by non LGPL code.
No. Because the BSD license gives full freedom to anybody who uses it.
I was just going to say this.
Isn't that the big advantage of using BSD over something Linux based.
Exactly. BSD is true freedom, no strings attached (except just give props).
Right
People need to learn what copy left and copy right is
@CrispyPotatoChipwhy does mit licensing suck? It is very permissive. You are even allowed to make money with open source code and its derivatives
@@rethardotv5874it sucks for people who care about the health and growth of the upstream project. The MIT license doesn't require contributing modifications back to upstream so most people don't. Thus, it is easy for fragmentation to happen and for the mainline version of the code to become stagnant unless their is some organization behind it providing new features. Really, a viral license like GPL is best if you want to promote community given GROWTH of a project whereas MIT (or BSD) is best if you have an organization that still intends to drive the code but want to share it for free - or, alternatively, you have a project that is already "dead" and you just want to share it with the world.
Apple has left the chat.
Apple about to leave the US, haha
@@avidwriter2882 explain? They’re also being sued by the EU not just the US
@@burntxela1258 yeah they're dead if they lose, and they're probably gonna lose.
I feel its important to point out Darwin and by extension MacOS has only ever had a FreeBSD based userland. The Kernel is entirely from the NEXT acquisition it is the Mach Kernel.
@@AryamanSriram Lobbying has entered the chat😂
Many companies have been using FreeBSD instead of Linux to build their products for decades because of the license terms, and have professional engineers with intimidate knowledge of the system. Fixes and enhancements make their way back to the base system one way or another because it’s a lot easier than maintaining an internal fork. It isn’t always public knowledge because many companies don’t want their competitors knowing what they are doing, or how they do it.
watching this from MacOS-BSD...😁
It used to be the case that BSD licensed code was used on more devices than any other license because the IP stack that was used on virtually all network connected devices was BSD code.
Shoutout to Grand Central Dispatch for existing in FreeBSD sources
Also shoutout to Illumos for being the reason we are not in the dark ages
How about Nintendo? They are using FreeBSD as their platform for their Switch console operating system.
Nintendo can't DMCA them. 😆
The Nintendogs Nintendon't care.
As if people fail to criticize and mock Nintendo? Why are you acting like that's something alien to gamers
I’ve heard conflicting information on that. I heard that Horizon (the Switch’s OS) is actually bespoke and only uses specific code derived from BSD for specific components (such as the network stack) rather than being built on FreeBSD itself.
@@plows2940 its mix of bsd, android, and nintendo proprietary code. cmiiw
Isn't the BSD license pretty similar to the MIT? They can use it commercially without contributing changes but they need to acknowledge that they used it.
Yeah, for most of the BSD/MIT licenses there are clauses stating that regardless of release as source or binary, usage of software licensed under one of those BSD/MIT licenses requires attribution. However...
There is now a 0 clause license, which does not require attribution. I'm not sure what is actually released under that license though, as far as OSS OS.
Been using the BSD's for 25 years and not really kept up to date with what uses which version of these licenses. LOL
It is, and the BSD license is what FreeBSD uses, not the MIT license (no idea where titus got that from).
It literally says that 1. you have to redistribute your code with the BSD license, and 2. there's no warranty, but you can use it any way you want.
@@Felix-ve9hs "It literally says that 1. you have to *_redistribute_* *_your_* *_code_* *_with_* *_the_* *_BSD_* *_license"_*
No, it doesn't...
1. Redistributions of source code *_must_* *_retain_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form *_must_* *_reproduce_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
You must provide attribution under this license, but *_NOT_* code.
@@Felix-ve9hs it also says you have to pay me
@@MrTweetyhack I will pay you in potatoes
Netflix just gained +100 respect in my book.
BSD also has kind of a "Thank you BSD Page" sony isn't even listed there ...
Netflix is still trash for their racist politics.
yes where is the required attribution
Sony probably asked NOT to be listed there.
Sony hides their open source contributions.
@@joshallen128 On a PS5 for example...
Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses
Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
JunOS from Juniper Networks is based on FreeBSD - they acknowledge it and support the FreeBSD Foundation.
Iirc weren't they pivoting to Linux in their newer Junos Evolved?
@@zandr0 Their new stuff is Linux based like Vmware ESXi but all their special sauce runs in user space via their own microservices architecture.
Sony has abused me by having games only run at 30fps on PS5
They're giving you that cinematic experience.
Don’t buy consoles then
Got to go PC, takes more work and money to get PC to give you that consoled experience, but it is worth it. I haven't owned a new console since the Xbox 360
Consoles are for people who are underachievers.
Does thy ps5 also sound loud like the ps4?
I do think GPL > MIT any day of the week, but hey, if a project IS MIT licensed you have every right in the world to use it.
Yeah the canoe GPL is toxic to Microsoft because their business is selling products like Windows and services like office 365 which is why they won't touch the agpl the new GPL. The only touch stuff they can add directly into their proprietary systems.
Ditto. When I release my software using MIT, it is either because I don't care or because I care too much to leave it up to me alone.
@@vicsar you obviously care otherwise you'd just release it into the public domain that way you dont try to go after license violators forgetting to put in your attribution
@@joshallen128 True that. My ego is still hard to tame.
I think Creative Commons Zero (CC0 Public Domain) is the best license. No credit required, relicensable, max usefulness to everyone.
Chris there is still timing to do a thumbnail with sony executives with bsd horns
Man a missed opportunity!
I never owned any Playstation, but I thought the biggest problem people had with Sony and Playstations was the time they disabled the Other OS feature on PS 3. More recently they almost took away TV shows that people thought they had "bought".
Don't forget the Sony rootkit scandal.
LLVM was mostly funded by Apple - MacOS is another operating system that is based on FreeBSD.
The Userland came from FreeBSD, the kernel is a Mach kernel
LLVM / Clang > GCC
@@CJ123for cross compiling hell yeah, especially the zig build tooling has been amazing for me.
But for speed, gcc all the way, nothing tears through C code like gcc. Its just such a hassle to work with imo.
Well yeah they did pay Chris Lattner wages for a bit :p
Apple is the last true BSD workstation but Apple come from earlier BSD and had Unix's code probably so for avoiding being sue it got the Unix's license... MacOS is OLDER than FreeBSD.
BSD license is not MIT (though practically the same). Many companies that use FreeBSD (like Apple) rather people not know what code they are contributing back so there is a assumption that they just take and don't give.
One of the beauties of FreeBSD is it's license
"Abusing"?
BSD license makes software free as a bird. Everyone can do with it what they want.
Netflix is pretty much keeping BSD alive. And i guess Sony, but BSD needs devs badly since everyone's using Linux. Especially for the future of BSD firewalls.
the reason why BSD is alive is because of BSD developers, that being FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD. I have AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, illumos, *BSD servers everywhere, and I can assure you that "everyone's using Linux" is just a marketing thing.
@@AntranigVartanian just because you use it doesn't mean it's very abundant. Even the military primarily uses Linux and few firewalls really use BSD anymore, they're mainly using Linux forks. BSD is hard to beat in terms of stability and security but they failed abysmally trying to implement Docker/containerization to stay relevant in the space and the dev forums kinda dried up not too long after that. You can ingest the copium if you want but just like a lot of open source these days, it's struggling
@@alienJIZ1990 "failed abysmally trying to implement Docker/containerization" you do realize that BSD and FreeBSD were the original creators of containers, right?
Docker is not the only container technology out there. Again, marketing != engineering.
@@AntranigVartanian yeah Jails exist but you're not looking at it from a management and business perspective. Marketing matters, the more popular the tools become, the more people know how to manage them. It's a lot easier and cheaper and scalable to find guys who can manage Docker, Kubernetes, Linux in general, etc. than it is to find specialized guys who can manage BSD distros correctly. Market dominance is absolutely a factor
I've developed quite a lot of open source code under the more permissive licenses, like the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. I can say that I've never expected users of that code to contribute back to it. If they do, that's great, but I chose those licenses for a reason. Sony can do as it pleases, as did Apple. It's a testament to the FreeBSD code base that companies would want to use that as a foundation for their products, and I have to imagine the FreeBSD developers are proud of that.
It is all about the license. If the license allows it, you can do whatever you want with that piece of code/software. I didn't know anyone was really talking about Sony abusing FreeBSD, tbh. Kinda surprising that someone would know about the existence of FreeBSD but not understand how its license works 🤷♂
As an aside, FreeBSD uses the 2-clause BSD license afaik, not the MIT license. While MIT is very popular amongst open-source software enthusiasts, I only know of two major pieces of software that use an MIT-derived license - zsh and X11.
There's some portion of the Linux users that take that line. The reality tends to be more muddied due to how expensive it can be to maintain a fork just to avoid having to give anything back. The great thing about opensource is that even if a company is truly giving nothing back, it costs the project basically nothing. And as long as enough other folks are giving, the project can continue to exist.
FreeBSD is used by a TON of commercial entities. GPL isn't as permissive, and with FreeBSD, the companies don't have to give out their secret sauce.
Nope, the BSD license was specifically made so you could make a profit from it, Contrary to the GPL license Richard Stallman create because he didn't like the MIT license. BSD is not Linux lol.
The license of FreeBSD is the BSD license.
Cool video btw !
There are no "complexities" of Sony using FreeBSD code. They're free to do so without contributing back and without giving "credit"; all they are obligated to do is duplicate the copyright notice. This is not theft. This is not abuse. The license allowing this is a conscious choice by the project and it's contributors. I license all my open source projects with BSD or MIT.
See this is why I watch Chris. He is willing to admit when his assumptions are shown to be wrong and then explains how he was wrong. When he is right he explains why it is bad.
Why does BSD License alllows that in the first place? And if BSD allows so, then how do they get an iota of right to whine about it?
Because freedom, and they don't whine.
@@michaelheimbrand5424 Yeah, freedom to Abuse. Freedom to exploit. Freedom to steal. The central pillars of American kind of freedom. You are free to rob, but not free to lead an honest life.
We don't wine whine when corporations do that, we celebrate when they use FreeBSD. And why allow that in the first place? well, there's a 40 year old history behind that.
That is good, I am using FreeBSD as a backup storage server at home.
My 2nd NAS in other words, I decided to run FreeBSD to have something that was a different ecosystem from ZFS On Linux that runs the rest and my other NAS.
If one breaks, I have the 2nd one to run.
Wow I never knew any of this so this is pretty cool to learn
Edit: Don’t worry I won’t buy a PS5 as I have a pc and a Steam Deck!
PS5 is not worth it without the jailbreak
My man a legend for having a steam deck with linux than that proprietary blob called rog ally
@@Zfentom I didn't even know it had jailbreaks for it, neat
@@writer9999 I love that little its just so impressive with what I can do to it and what it can do
Is it actually any abuse if they don't give anything back? Isn't the FreeBSD license allowing that compared to the Linux license?
Yes, it does and even encourages it.
Yeah, it’s quite a clickbait
TL:DR. BSD is THE Grandfather platform for Modern high-performance computing. BSD is THE "almost-operating system" that the world has relied on. It's no surprise Sony would use it as a platform, it makes utter sense. Why not use a robust, tried, tested vetted and secure base system, having been improved on, over the span of 40+ years? Unix has strong "do's and dont's" and if you wanted functionality, you had to code it and have that code scrutinized by everyone and then some. Too much to go into. But if you wrote code for 1+1=10 (bin), it would be scrutinized on how you got there, what registers were used, and if there was a way to do it better and faster (and today, more securely). and THAT is why BSD works as well as it does. Imagine if Boeing (yikes, I know) only ever built 1 aircraft, and the iterations thereof only added stable, reliable, mature and robust technological features. not more comfy seats, not in-air entertainment, just raw-metal and flight control and speed improvements. No Microwave ovens, no in-flight facilities, just utter, secure reliability. Imagine aviation having other Aircraft like a Gulfstream, but their Pilots keep saying, "yeah, but it's still not a Boeing". "Yeah, that's a nice lighter, but it's still not a Zippo". BSD simply works, and it's good to get companies to give back to the real Alpha-God-nerds that merely want a tiny thank-you and more hardware to carry on making BSD better, not fancier, or prettier, just better. True Altruism.
Sony abuses a lot of things with PlayStation
Thanks for telling us about this, I had no idea Sony and Nintendo Switch use freebsd. It is too bad FreeBSD isn't upto to par to Linux Desktop distros for newer hardware drivers, etc...I was considering trying it out; but not sure 100% yet.
My desktop machine is an iMac 27" that runs OpenBSD. When it comes to laptops I use OpenBSD on Thinkpads. By far the most stable laptop/power management experience I've seen. You can do it to.
Can't say much about desktop/laptop, but on the server side, Linux is very far behind, specially in storage and networking.
??? Sony are under no moral obligation whatsoever to contribute. Have you read the MIT licence?
Correct, the BSD licenses allows this.
Chris titus is the GOAT
Another case I can remember a company abusing the GPL license is Korg with their OASYS, Kronos and most likely Nautilus workstations. Inside the Kronos and Nautilus, you're gonna find a Mini-ITX motherboard with an embedded Intel Atom (Nautilus uses an ASRock Industrial motherboard with some ports removed). They use a modified Linux kernel with RTAI extensions along with some other bits of proprietary code. Afaik, no one went after them or reported that. I think they provide that bit of source code in the recovery discs that come with the unit, but you have to buy the workstation to have access to them and they distribute those modifications as a binary Linux. Any attempts to make those modifications public have been met with a Cease and Desist from the company. Yamaha uses MontaVista Linux on all their current workstations, but they do mention that in their product pages and you can find said modifications for download.
The early OASyS's were using such a small kernel to basically boot into their proprietary software, I think they avoided the GPL issue by not distributing that. I'm not much of an expert on the legal side.
I really liked this video and how honestly you're taking about it.
Btw cool background but having it move constantly is a bit disorienting, perhaps have it move a few short times during the video?
Some might be surprised to know that some enterprise storage vendors use FreeBSD two big ones are
Dell/EMC Isilon (now called Powerscale) uses FreeBSD with the custom OneFS clustered filesystem; Dell stopped advertising what version of FreeBSD its based off of.
Netapp Clustered Data ONTAP uses FreeBSD with there own custom raid tech and filesystem (WAFL aka Write Anywhere File Layer)
Part of the motivation for companies like sony to upload some of the code upsource is that it is easier for their own development. It makes sense. As long as they don't give an advantage to their competitors they don't mind other people using that code too if it makes their own workflow easier. In regard to the PS5, Chris, just look quickly at both the PS5 and the latest XBox and notice how the XBox has nice holes for airflow while the PS5 has a lot of decorative plastic on top. Just based on that alone I would have more confidence in the XBox surviving. Function over form for hardware.
Out of all the things I've read today, this is the dumbest. Consoles aren't cooled by convection. They're cooled by fans. You don't need holes on the top for hot air to escape
@@Rainsoakedcoat Of all thet things I've read today, this is by far the dumbest. With holes more air will get out than with a lot of plastic, fans don't magically push that air through that plastic. A lot of PS5's went broken early, just because you like to play on a PS5 doesn't make the box a good design. This round was won by Microsoft, in regard to the hardware.
The MIT and BSD licences are similar (and different from the GPL in that you don't have to give back modified code), but not identical.
Sir Chris Titus, I got rid of Bixby on my S9 completely. Thanks. Earlier I removed the side Bixby button out with a knife.
4:01 The reason they probably don’t want people to know is because of the culture in Japan. They’re very humble and you are taught not to take credit for things, even if you do something deserving of credit.
I think that companies using open source software wether or not they are taking advantage is always good. Hear me out. If these companies start converting to open source than it will force people in the tech world to need to learn and use open source. The more space taken up by open source the more prevalent open source will be.
Short answer: No.
Here my 2 cents: the GPL-license is better than the FreeBSD-license because the first allows anyone to use the code and simply uses the principle of reciprocity: if this code helps you out, great, but if you change the code then you keep it open source because other people might get helped out by that. Simple and just. The FreeBSD-license also aims to help people by sharing the code but allows companies to close-source it after changing it, so there is no reciprocity, it is not as just. Of course companies like Sony love it that they can keep the code a secret after using the work of all the people who opensourced the core of their code, they love it that they don't have to give back. Some of these companies might give back to some extend but that is not necessarily the case. Does Sony abuse FreeBSD? Legally not, we can argue about them morally abusing it.
There is also a counter-argument. If you do not contribute to FreeBSD, you get technical debt because your patches add up and never make it upstream.
If you send all your patches upstream and integrate them into FreeBSD, the workload is much less, and the community does most of the work for you.
Sony's unwillingness to contribute literally causes them a lot of work, money, and developer time that could be spent elsewhere.
On the other hand if the people making FreeBSD didn't want that happening that would be using a different license
@@Felix-ve9hs That is what I hinted at with "might giving back to some extend".
The majority of people using the code from the command line are also not contributing to the project in any way...
@@hoi-polloi1863 That is true but how is that relevant? The GPL-license is not about having to contribute, it is about having to contribute if you extend the code.
If you think about what companies pay to their employees and what they keep as profit, all companies get much more than they pay for, not only in this particular case
Sure, but... without that factor the companies and their products wouldn't exist.
Here's the difference between BSD and GPL.
BSD: "Here, take this code, I wrote it out of the goodness of my heart. Oh, you're using it on 117 million consoles around the world?! Awesome!!"
GPL: "Here, take this code, I wrote it out of the goodness of my heart. Oh, you're making a profit from it? To hell with the goodness of my heart, I want my cut!"
Ultimately, if you put source code out into the wild under an open source license, and you don't explicitly state "not for commercial use", you can't then get hurt or even call it "stealing" when a corporation uses it.
2:06 Most of the BSD/MIT licenses have clauses requiring attribution. There is a 0 clause license, but not everything released under these licenses is licensed under that 0 clause license.
Note, on a PS5 for example...
Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses
Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
The GPL is a bit like if you ask your dad if you can loan your friend a toy, and he says "Make sure he brings it back nicer than you gave it to him." The BSD License is more like your dad says "Sure whatever, its your toy."
There is a reason why Linux has more people willing to contribute their time and effort. GPL > BSD.
nah, linux was just more popular in the day because BSD was still under legal trouble with the owners of Unix. Linux was built from scratch which allowed common consumers and industry to start adopting it sooner. Even then Linus disliked where GPL was heading and really only wanted people to contribute back to the code, which is why he stuck with v2.
@@kenneth_romero he had no problem with hardware vendors out there except nvidia, but even if linux kernel had went to GPLv3 then a major schism would have happened and i guess a fork of the linux kernel would have occured named maybe freax from the early days
Glad to see this being addressed. While people like to talk about big tech profiting off of the hard work of open source devs, and there are many examples of this to be fair, the truth is many companies contribute quite a bit to open source.
Copying is never stealing, unless you mean to say stealing credit. BSD isn't being deprived of something they previously had when anyone copies their code under any circumstances. Calling copying "stealing" is hyperbolic mischaracterization that leads to all sorts of wrong-headed thinking and wasted energy.
Wish there had been a prompt to skip the intro if you know approximately how the MIT license works. Excited for the rest of the vid but the first two minutes aren't "for me" but im glad you included it for others.
My view on open source licenses is the rant included with Paku Paku.
Short answer is NO.
The moving background is fucking annoying. TURN IF OFF!!!
i'd say this: every major software corporation is abusing open source. that's the whole point of "free" market capitalism: you socialize the risks & expenses, privatize the results. the mechanism of this expense socialization can change: before 1970s the expenses of communications & IT were socialized via government research that was essentially privatized for near-zero price, now it's socialized via open-source usage, in the coming decades it will be probably socialized via spyware and LLMs.
It doesn't mean that companies never reinvest in society (many of them clearly do), but they never reinvest the full price (the delta is the profit), or it wouldn't be capitalism.
If the title / headline is worded as an overly attention grabbing question ... the answer is always no.
Thanks Gman
The developers of FreeBSD decided to use a license that allows anyone to make anything with it, so it’s fine if anyone makes anything with it, even if that thing is proprietary.
sidenote: the moving background isnt working well for my focus :)
Well, that's the purpose of the license and why it was created. Tough.
well, personally thats why i always pick GPL license for my code
FreeBSD isn’t open source it’s the GNU license and you’re allowed to sell a product as long as your give credit to BSD. Free software means you’re free to do with it as you chose including sell a closed source version
I don't understand why just because a company is big that they must contribute more to FOSS they use.
the big thing a lot of people miss is that there are three questions
1 : justified legality
2 : justified morally
3 : ought to be justified legally
Calling a random person on the street a dickhead is legal, not moral, and should be legal. (unprovoked once-off insults aren't harassment, it's just being a dick) Breaking into someone's house is not legal, not moral, and should not be legal. If you go back and time slavery was legal, was not moral, and should not have been legal. Posting spicy memes is increasingly illegal, debatably moral, but should be flatly legal as it doesn't affect anyone. Stopping in to stop someone from killing someone else can actually be illegal depending on the exact laws and circumstance, but it's entirely moral and should be legal.
The point though is that it's not just "yeah this is legal *_technically,_* but it's still immoral" because the MIT specifically exists to guarantee that third category. The only reason you license anything under a permissive license is because you, as the developer, are saying "anyone can use this, whether I like it or not". That also more or less nullifies the second category because the developers explicitly chose to allow anyone to use it even if they wouldn't have liked to give permission.
The entire thing around "X company is just abusing open source!" is 99/100 times just used as a way to polarize people into "BIG COMPANY BAD" blind hatred, without actually saying anything substantive. Unless you genuinely want to do something insane like ban permissive licensing because you think it's for developers' "own good" to stop them from licensing their work permissively, the only conclusion even the worst cases can come to is "It's legal, it should be legal, there is no solid moral basis to condemn it on, but I just find it personally icky and would like if they gave more back" which isn't really, well, anything. Worse than that however, it doesn't even really achieve the desired goal since the best way to get companies to contribute back isn't by saying "y'know I reaaaaally wish you would though" it's to give reasons why it's beneficial from a business perspective to do so. So, ironically, making the discussion all about personal objections regarding the entirely subjective percieved morality of it as opposed to the hard realities is actually directing the conversation *_away_* from what could actually lead to more contribution.
We saw the same exact sort of blind frenzied hatred and righteous indignation around 'live service games' where it practically turned into a slur, then Helldivers 2 releases and suuuuuudenly "no no, they're not *_all_* bad, Helldivers 2 is just one of the good ones". Instead of looking at what the games actually were and analyzing how to make them better, people jujst got a pithy name to pin it under and started using it as a self-defined derogatory. The same thing happens in the opposite direction, "RIGHT TO REPAIR" is a lot more common than looking at how repairability factors into the balance between value and profitability which must underpin any stable system. For instance, not being easily repairable means that indirect revenue from the product increases, buuuuuuut that also means that for equivalent profit the company can sell the product at a lower price (directional causality is really impossible to establish here, both directions are equally as valid, 2+2*2 == 2*2+2, one doesn't imply the other they just *_are_* equal) so a responsible owner that keeps their device undamaged ends up paying less for the same experience. By the same token since it's more expensive to repair them, high quality devices are going to be less common in the second hand market and go for more, so that responsible owner can actually get an even *_lower_* price factoring in reselling later. It can't be simplified to "BIG COMPANY BAD", yet that's exactly what a lot of these conversations explicitly try to do.
No, FreeBSD has chosen to distribute the operating system under the BSD licence. It's their own decision and choice to use a permissive licence rather than a copyleft licence.
It’s not abuse. They act in accordance to the license. If you ‘expect’ something in return, don’t hate Sony. Hate FreeBSD for not using another license.
Why is the screen behind covered 1/3? Would be nice to see the content you talk about.
FOSS nerds really need to come to terms with the fact that without contributions from [Insert EVIL corporate conglomerate here] the Open Source landscape would be a bit more sparse than it already is.
BSD is BSD-licensed... BSD does accept MIT licensed code - however all of the core is BSD licensed.
Love your honesty man...keep up the good work.
OMG I'm fed up with FOSS enthusiasts making meme Pikachu faces when they realise their favourite free and open source software is being freely used by big corporations. Don't make or use FOSS if you hate the concept of it being freely available.
This is the kind of hypocrisy and pettiness I've seen in several opensource projects. People want the accolades, support, and possibly donations that comes with something being opensource, but then when that source starts being used in another project or someone starts making money off it, they suddenly start shouting 'it's not fair' ,or 'where's my cut?'. I saw this with the Mypal web browser for Windows XP. It was originally based on the Palemoon browser, but when the developer(s) of that project started getting angry Mypal was using their project as a base, the Mypal developer almost quit. Mypal has switched to a Firefox base for their future versions, but still, this isn't how opensource is supposed to work. If you don't want your code being used by someone else like this, then don't make it open source, or at the very least, come up with a different license that excludes certain uses.
I'm not against anyone getting compensation for their work, but opensource comes with its own set of rules. If you aren't willing to abide by those rules as a dev or user, then don't use opensource. There are plenty of closed source alternatives out there.
So if gaming is possible in a FreeBSD system, why can't we play at the same performance in a Linux system? WHY?
Umm, you can.
I don't know PS games system work, but I think the games were compiled and coded specifically for PS systems, that's probably why there is quite some difference between PC and PS games, be it gameplay or quality.
Abuse? If you give away you work for free then don't complain someone takes it without paying or contributing.
Hot take: Sony switching to Vulkan would do more for open-source and Linux than switching to Linux would.
Which BSD is IOS based on?
propietary
Probably.
Only reason I bought a PS5 is for FFVII Rebirth. I wish exclusives would go away. I just want to game on my PC, its just better.
apple?
NetBSD with the Darwin/MACH XNU Kernel. Some of the Userland was from FreeBSD in the PowerPC/Intel days but that has changed over the last few years with ARM.
I have no respect for FreeBSD as they are using a permissive licence, meaning that they brought this upon themselves.
If Sony depends on FreeBSD then of course they will make sure that FreeBSD stays happy an healthy.
It is just a hop and skip to Linux top contributors to realise that these companies carry the weight of FOSS.
What about MacOS they buried Down Darwin
The userland was FreeBSD the kernel is the Mach Kernel
They give back alright by having exclusive games that you can't play on PC, they give back it's just what they give isn't positive!
The world is richer for Open Source being what it is and Free software being what it is. Both paradigms have their uses, when you start a new project be careful what you choose.
Linux desktops are great because of the GPL. Indie games are great because you can use open source like MonoGame or Godot, the industry would be worse off if you were forced to write from scratch, go fully GPL or go with Unity/Unreal.
That's very interesting. Either way, it is their right to use and redistribute the software in whatever way they want. That's in the license agreement, but also that's part of the spirit of free/open source. The only way to stop it would be to make the license agreement force Sony to act differently by using their software. Which is anti-freedom
I mean, it's OSS so they are free to use it as they please.
lol. But FreeBSD is open source and modifiable by everyone and oh okay you are explaining that now .
Sooooooo it's recommended for everyone to ditch Windows and Apple to use opensource but it's wrong when Sony does it.
Free-bsd how is it stealing?
sony is up-to something ....since they knew what steam is doing with linux and now sony want to help freebsd community by uploading new code for freebsd users on how to run dx12 games on freebsd
This is the FreeBSD economy. Credits is all it requires. It's not copyleft like GPL for Linux kernal and GNU.
But even if Sony's Playstation used Linux, Sony would only have to open source whatever it had modified of Linux kernel and GNU, amirite? It could keep its own user apps closed source.
FreeBSD, however, can't pull anything GPL into itself without putting restrictions on the MIT license. That's the price FreeBSD has to pay.
If you want to learn about evil people and corporations, try Behind the Bastards.
I dont mind the clouds in the background but maybe stop the room panning lol
It's amazing we have BSD licensed so liberally and some pretty good variants being Free, Open and Net. They are similar and different to Linux. I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2. I like how userland and kernel are distributed together. I like how you can use packages and ports to install software. Things that aren't as good is the vilume of information compared to Linux. Also hardware support is not quite the same level as Linux. If you're keen give it an install.
Doesn't FreeBSD use the BSD license?
No, FreeBSD choosed BSD license and so Apple and Sony can do this. Btw at least Apple hired Hubbard. EDIT: MacOS is an older BSD.
Dont they use the licensing to classify the console as a computer
1:45 You can use GPL source code in your project and absolutely NOT release YOUR code for your project, *_as_* *_long_* *_as_* *_your_* *_code_* *_is_* *_not_* *_a_* *_modification_* *_of_* *_any_* *_of_* *_the_* *_GPL'ed_* *_code._*
When people request a copy of the GPL code you've used in your project, you then only give over the unchanged GPL code that you used and not your own code.
This is VERY restrictive in what you can do with your project, however, so if you want total freedom to use an OSS OS, to change it as you like to your needs without needing to release your code changes... then BSD/MIT licence for the win!
Not really. Even if your code interfaces with an entirely separate executable that is GPL licensed, it is still unclear if your other code is free from obligation. This is where the LGPL comes in, as it specifically exists to make it possible to have LGPL code in a dynamically linked library that can be referenced by non LGPL code.
That's a really cool backdrop!
Mine died too cost me 300 to fix 😪
Why are trying to find negative news? I don't see the benifit(apart from it generating more clicks) .