@@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.
That's why those too permissive (BSD, MIT) licenses harm FOSS more than anything else. It's not just about money, you know. More FOSS is always 'more better'. When a corp takes an open source product and derives a close source from it, thew whole world loses
Anyone could take a BSD licensed project and create a GPL licensed fork of it. The BSD licensed project will have more potential users and thus more potential contributors, so it will likely remain the more popular version.
@@henrymach Redis is an example of a company trying to make a restricted source fork of permissively licensed software. A fork that retains the permissive license will outcompete it for mindshare and the more restricted source fork will effectively fail. For projects where mindshare is a top concern, the most permissive license has a huge advantage.
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
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.
You made it sound like FreeBSD developers compromise on something, taking money from businesses. While, in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong in s/w development for money. Otherwise how can s/w developers know their work is useful? Only when someone puts money where their mouth is.
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.
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.
It is crazy what sony has accomplished for Free BSD with gaming on their platform and yet they have not allowed any of their technologies to potentially benefit Free BSD and maybe turn it into an actual alternative to Windows and Linux as a Gaming Operating System.
@@oraclejmt Does not mean it is not crazy, money works for all sorts of things that accomplish nothing despite how "Money works". Seeing a company as cringe as Sony in recent years turn a piece of excellent software that is not so accessible to gamers on the Desktop into one of the most performant low level, low overhead gaming experiences on their platforms is pretty whacko (crazy I mean) when Xbox is still using their desktop software on a console at the cost of performance despite being more powerful. What would be really crazy is if some years down the road Sony made that shit open source or allowed it to be used on PC in some way, we maybe would have a 3d contender in the PC gaming space but for now it will just have to be crazy that they did it at all.
@@n0viewers409 Calling a company registered on the stock market for "cringe" is a very immature way to view how business works. You're too young to understand, i'm afraid. You might need to educate yourself, read some books, touch some grass.
If I was a big company like Playstation I would make it quite vocal in credit in the instruction manual, on the box outside when you buy it and somewhere obvious on what you call a "Playstation desktop" that my console is based on FreeBSD. I'd provide a link to the website and thank them. I would pay them a lot of money and always be really respectful. During product launches i'd probably would start of my speeches thanking FreeBSD! I don't use FreeBSD but I always want people to know that I respect that OS and I might use it one day. Who knows.... I am grateful for all the good that comes out of FreeBSD!
M. Kirk McKusick, one of the major figures in the history of the BSDs says its license isn't copyright like Microsoft, nor is it copy left like the GPL. Instead it's "copycentre" as in you can take it, make a bunch of copies of the code and do whatever It makes more sense when you think of its history originating from a university research project
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.
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?
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.
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.
@@RavenMobile you missed the point of what i was stating - the freebsd license allows for this , if a party that takes the code makes changes, they are not obligated to release those changes back into the code/community , and so for anyone complaining about this , is just pee'ing against the wind.
@@breadmoth6443 For the FreeBSD project, there's no difference between someone not using your software and someone using your software and not giving back. In most cases, people will eventually give something back to the project, so it's always a win-win for them whether they get something back or not. :)
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.
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.
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.
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)
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Big corporations are always hyper questionable. When you work with them, you're often getting big rewards for selling something in exchange, often you're sold. As the big company up, almost always reaps every single bit of the value.
I agree it is a good thing when a big company uses something open source but what I disagree with is when a big company takes open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary product I think that if open source code used the finished product should be open source
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.
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
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
Hm. FreeBSD is distributed under their own license, which is close but not the same as MIT license. Some parts of the sources are under GPL and LGPL, too. All that is documented on their website in the FAQ section. There are no link to any of the other claims, either. I'm not too sure what to believe.
3:15 I think its because they don't want people getting ideas on how to create bypasses around the consoles bootloader and filesystem even though that's most likely not possible without access to a debug port on the mainboard, or a modchip, etc.
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.
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.
Same thing happened with Microsoft using FFMPEG on Teams. The devs of FFMPEG were expecting a huge amount of money for fixing bugs Microsoft pointed out. Since when did Open Source become "Everyone can use it! Except big corporations, they still have to pay"? Having different rules for different people is called hypocrisy, and this would hurt the reputation of open source Projects and make everyone in companies use proprietary solutions again
My PS2 Slim (soft modded) still works after all of these years which I purchased brand new around 06. I also have a PS3 model with the top sliding panel to access the disc instead of a mechanical ejecting tray which I purchased used about 2 years ago. They still both work great. I'm not interested in a PS4 or 5! And most of the best titles were on the PS2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FreeBSD is MADE for this purpose, to give full control to whoever uses it, there's no stealing nor something in between, this is not GNU/Linux with CopyLeft or something with CopyRight licenses, all you have to do is to say you are using BSD
Going to freeBSDs very own site. They openly state they are free and open source powered by the community. I get what you're saying but sony in this case has kept within the rules for this. The question should sony contribute to freebsd in some way? As you found they did plus indirectly they are helping promote the platform but not singing about it. Having sony and Netflix on your side is a big deal especially when your meant to be free! Proves nothings really free
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.
i read the title to think sony is abusing the freebsd developers... no as long as sony adheres to the rather permissive like nature of freebsd's code and license they are good. executable/source code attribution required only
No, something being Free and Open Source Software does NOT imply in doing whatever you want. That only applies to some really permissive licenses such as BSD, MIT and some of the Creative Commons licenses. Most copyleft licenses such as GPL impose certain obligations onto licensees which, in my opinion, is a _very good thing_ ™because it levels the play field: Sony can't just take GPL code, make changes and never contribute anything the way it can with BSD-licensed code, for instance.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 yes in this case the GNU GPL is a rather liberal yet restrictive conservative license, it conserves the freedoms bestowed unto downstream third party users and devs
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. 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
Please turn off the motion sickness background. PLEASE
I second this
I had to scroll the video out of view.
I like it
Was trying something new... It didn't go as planed and I didn't feel like re-recording haha. I won't do it again.
@@ChrisTitusTech Thanks. Trying something new is GOOD. It's just I get sea sick just looking at a boat. I don't even need to be on the boat...
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.
That's why those too permissive (BSD, MIT) licenses harm FOSS more than anything else. It's not just about money, you know. More FOSS is always 'more better'. When a corp takes an open source product and derives a close source from it, thew whole world loses
Anyone could take a BSD licensed project and create a GPL licensed fork of it. The BSD licensed project will have more potential users and thus more potential contributors, so it will likely remain the more popular version.
@@yahm0n Anyone could take a BSD licensed project and create a closed source of it. That's the problem
@@henrymach Redis is an example of a company trying to make a restricted source fork of permissively licensed software. A fork that retains the permissive license will outcompete it for mindshare and the more restricted source fork will effectively fail. For projects where mindshare is a top concern, the most permissive license has a huge advantage.
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?
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.
Chris there is still timing to do a thumbnail with sony executives with bsd horns
Man a missed opportunity!
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.
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.
You made it sound like FreeBSD developers compromise on something, taking money from businesses. While, in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong in s/w development for money. Otherwise how can s/w developers know their work is useful? Only when someone puts money where their mouth is.
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.
One of the beauties of FreeBSD is it's license
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.
not taking cred is massive
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.
"Abusing"?
BSD license makes software free as a bird. Everyone can do with it what they want.
Aaand this bird you can just chaaaaaaange...
It is crazy what sony has accomplished for Free BSD with gaming on their platform and yet they have not allowed any of their technologies to potentially benefit Free BSD and maybe turn it into an actual alternative to Windows and Linux as a Gaming Operating System.
No it's not crazy. That's how money works.
@@oraclejmt Does not mean it is not crazy, money works for all sorts of things that accomplish nothing despite how "Money works". Seeing a company as cringe as Sony in recent years turn a piece of excellent software that is not so accessible to gamers on the Desktop into one of the most performant low level, low overhead gaming experiences on their platforms is pretty whacko (crazy I mean) when Xbox is still using their desktop software on a console at the cost of performance despite being more powerful. What would be really crazy is if some years down the road Sony made that shit open source or allowed it to be used on PC in some way, we maybe would have a 3d contender in the PC gaming space but for now it will just have to be crazy that they did it at all.
@@n0viewers409 Calling a company registered on the stock market for "cringe" is a very immature way to view how business works. You're too young to understand, i'm afraid. You might need to educate yourself, read some books, touch some grass.
@@oraclejmt cringe
@bryanedds8922 Yeah, you are. You're absolutely right. 🤣
If I was a big company like Playstation I would make it quite vocal in credit in the instruction manual, on the box outside when you buy it and somewhere obvious on what you call a "Playstation desktop" that my console is based on FreeBSD. I'd provide a link to the website and thank them. I would pay them a lot of money and always be really respectful.
During product launches i'd probably would start of my speeches thanking FreeBSD! I don't use FreeBSD but I always want people to know that I respect that OS and I might use it one day. Who knows.... I am grateful for all the good that comes out of FreeBSD!
In general BSD family works better tbh. Comparing Gnu Linux to MacOS, Android to iPhone... I need to be realistic: Linux
M. Kirk McKusick, one of the major figures in the history of the BSDs says its license isn't copyright like Microsoft, nor is it copy left like the GPL. Instead it's "copycentre" as in you can take it, make a bunch of copies of the code and do whatever
It makes more sense when you think of its history originating from a university research project
that's what i thought. it's just researchers wanting to see if they have anything that is worthwhile for big industry.
Yes, the honor system.
copyneutral copycentric or i guess public domain like permissive enough like public domain but minimal restrictions
This man and his husband are my two heroes and, drum sound, using a Mac! LOL
GPL is actually the one in the middle. It is less restrictive than closed source but more restrictive than BSD.
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.
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.
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?
The license of FreeBSD is the BSD license.
Cool video btw !
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.
If you wanna call a company the devil for using FreeBSD, check if Nintendo has done anything, the switch runs BSD after all
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.
Having the screen behind you is a cool effect! Neat perspective!
and so what if they are? FreeBSD license technically permits what Sony is doing - this is the downside of this license.
If you release code to be used by the world, why would you be offended by people using it?
@@RavenMobile you missed the point of what i was stating - the freebsd license allows for this , if a party that takes the code makes changes, they are not obligated to release those changes back into the code/community , and so for anyone complaining about this , is just pee'ing against the wind.
@@breadmoth6443 For the FreeBSD project, there's no difference between someone not using your software and someone using your software and not giving back.
In most cases, people will eventually give something back to the project, so it's always a win-win for them whether they get something back or not. :)
I agree, this is the only reason that stops me from using any *BSD software.
@@mearetom So you don't use SSH?
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
Why is the screen behind covered 1/3? Would be nice to see the content you talk about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Chris titus is the GOAT
It's human to go with an opinion into a topic but it's mature and wise to change it when faced with other facts.
Love your honesty man...keep up the good work.
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.
That's a really cool backdrop!
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.
If you use the MIT liscense you consent to having your code stolen and given nothing in return.
I imagine if you are using MIT license you don't see it as stealing. Instead, you see yourself as donating your code to the world.
@@hoi-polloi1863 Its more donating your code to megacorporations so they can reduce users freedoms
Big corporations are always hyper questionable. When you work with them, you're often getting big rewards for selling something in exchange, often you're sold. As the big company up, almost always reaps every single bit of the value.
I agree it is a good thing when a big company uses something open source but what I disagree with is when a big company takes open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary product I think that if open source code used the finished product should be open source
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.
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
Given that FreeBSD isn't licensed under MIT, wouldn't it be best to edit the article and annotate the video or something?
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
Sir Chris Titus, I got rid of Bixby on my S9 completely. Thanks. Earlier I removed the side Bixby button out with a knife.
viper im confused why your timestamp just says "NETFLIX" while talking about your editing and speedrun
Hm. FreeBSD is distributed under their own license, which is close but not the same as MIT license. Some parts of the sources are under GPL and LGPL, too. All that is documented on their website in the FAQ section. There are no link to any of the other claims, either. I'm not too sure what to believe.
Short answer: No.
Was Apple stealing too?? It's based on BSD
Can you really steal something that is free for everyone?
3:15 I think its because they don't want people getting ideas on how to create bypasses around the consoles bootloader and filesystem even though that's most likely not possible without access to a debug port on the mainboard, or a modchip, etc.
Background looks dope
Pretty sure Nintendo uses Unix on the Switch
Why are trying to find negative news? I don't see the benifit(apart from it generating more clicks) .
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.
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.
How is there a FreeBSD version of the new Call of Duty games but no Linux version?
Short answer is NO.
(loving the new format of the videos :DD)
Same thing happened with Microsoft using FFMPEG on Teams. The devs of FFMPEG were expecting a huge amount of money for fixing bugs Microsoft pointed out. Since when did Open Source become "Everyone can use it! Except big corporations, they still have to pay"? Having different rules for different people is called hypocrisy, and this would hurt the reputation of open source Projects and make everyone in companies use proprietary solutions again
My view on open source licenses is the rant included with Paku Paku.
My PS2 Slim (soft modded) still works after all of these years which I purchased brand new around 06. I also have a PS3 model with the top sliding panel to access the disc instead of a mechanical ejecting tray which I purchased used about 2 years ago. They still both work great. I'm not interested in a PS4 or 5! And most of the best titles were on the PS2.
I thought that FreeBSD used the BSD license? Also, I think that there’s an attribution requirement for MIT and BSD isn’t there?
lol. But FreeBSD is open source and modifiable by everyone and oh okay you are explaining that now .
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.
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 don't understand why just because a company is big that they must contribute more to FOSS they use.
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.
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.
yoooo the background go nuts ngl
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.
FreeBSD is MADE for this purpose, to give full control to whoever uses it, there's no stealing nor something in between, this is not GNU/Linux with CopyLeft or something with CopyRight licenses, all you have to do is to say you are using BSD
Sony abuses a lot of things with PlayStation
FreeBSD is not using the MIT license. They use the BSD license.
So just need decryption keys and then you could technically add missing parts that would be useful for making PS5 better all around.
Going to freeBSDs very own site. They openly state they are free and open source powered by the community. I get what you're saying but sony in this case has kept within the rules for this.
The question should sony contribute to freebsd in some way? As you found they did plus indirectly they are helping promote the platform but not singing about it.
Having sony and Netflix on your side is a big deal especially when your meant to be free! Proves nothings really free
Which BSD is IOS based on?
propietary
Doesn't FreeBSD use the BSD license?
Abuse? If you give away you work for free then don't complain someone takes it without paying or contributing.
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.
I mean if it's FOSS doesn't it imply you can do whatever you want? I'd assume they edited the code enough so it's not the same as the current FreeBSD?
i read the title to think sony is abusing the freebsd developers... no as long as sony adheres to the rather permissive like nature of freebsd's code and license they are good. executable/source code attribution required only
No, something being Free and Open Source Software does NOT imply in doing whatever you want. That only applies to some really permissive licenses such as BSD, MIT and some of the Creative Commons licenses. Most copyleft licenses such as GPL impose certain obligations onto licensees which, in my opinion, is a _very good thing_ ™because it levels the play field: Sony can't just take GPL code, make changes and never contribute anything the way it can with BSD-licensed code, for instance.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 yes in this case the GNU GPL is a rather liberal yet restrictive conservative license, it conserves the freedoms bestowed unto downstream third party users and devs
FreeBSD comes with the BSD license. Attribution is part of the license. And llvm/clang is donated by Apple.
Hi Titus
Great channel mate.
I was curious, are you a born again Christian by any chance?
Thanks
That isn't entirely correct. Sony could probably leverage Linux to redo the playstation OS fairly quickly.
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.