▲ 141 ▼ Let's Try BSD, Part 1 of 7: Introduction (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD) (lowendbox.com) submitted 2 years ago by jaypatelani@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml 38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) While that is true, the question is whether that's a good thing, or not, and for whom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] biribiri11@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* It’s a good thing for the owners of the codebase, but often, a bad thing for the community (even if the community contributes to said codebase). For example, FOSS maintainers sometimes will (want to) relicense to protect their income stream: https://github.com/CaffeineMC/sodium-fabric/issues/2400 https://github.com/LizardByte/Sunshine/pull/150 While corporations might literally have maintainers sign away their rights so they can take the work from their own community: https://lwn.net/Articles/937369/ (canonical requires a CLA, though this + the subsequent re-license might have happened anyway) https://lwn.net/Articles/935592/ (RPM spec files are MIT licensed at the Fedora level. There are likely chnages to RPM files contributed by the community that are now source-restricted in RHEL) https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/networkbuilders/accelerate-snort-performance-with-hyperscan-and-intel-xeon-processors-on-public-clouds-1680176363.pdf (See section 2.2. Previously, this work was BSD) Mixed bag, really. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] biribiri11@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* It’s a good thing for the owners of the codebase, but often, a bad thing for the community (even if the community contributes to said codebase). For example, FOSS maintainers sometimes will (want to) relicense to protect their income stream: https://github.com/CaffeineMC/sodium-fabric/issues/2400 https://github.com/LizardByte/Sunshine/pull/150 While corporations might literally have maintainers sign away their rights so they can take the work from their own community: https://lwn.net/Articles/937369/ (canonical requires a CLA, though this + the subsequent re-license might have happened anyway) https://lwn.net/Articles/935592/ (RPM spec files are MIT licensed at the Fedora level. There are likely chnages to RPM files contributed by the community that are now source-restricted in RHEL) https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/networkbuilders/accelerate-snort-performance-with-hyperscan-and-intel-xeon-processors-on-public-clouds-1680176363.pdf (See section 2.2. Previously, this work was BSD) Mixed bag, really. permalink fedilink source parent