What’s the point of it?

OpenBSD = Security

FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like

NetBSD = ???

Based on the name of have assumed it’s be used in things like network appliances but in 20 years I’ve never seen a single device use it.

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    0·
    9 months ago

    I have no idea why they would do that to themselves. You develop free software without any protection again abuse?

    • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
      0·
      9 months ago

      SEE THEIR POLICY, don’t complain with me

      https://openbsd.org/policy.html

      They distribute a Free operating system

      The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.

      A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.

      In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.

      The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.

      While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.

          • Pantherina@feddit.de
            0·
            9 months ago

            A project could compromise by entering into NDA agreements with vendors, or including binary objects in the operating system for which no source code exists

            Agreed.

            I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that. Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?

            • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
              0·
              9 months ago

              I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that

              Blobs that are redistributable is still included. The 0x things are redistributable under BSD 3 clause license, with an additional clause prohibiting reverse engineering

              Which is much free than the gpl

              Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?

              What??

              • Pantherina@feddit.de
                0·
                9 months ago

                Copyleft means FOSS that can only be used as FOSS. Any changes made need to be published etc. Blobs are not even FOSS, so they can only be implemented as Linux is not FOSS.

                with an additional clause prohibiting reverse engineering

                What does that mean? You can redistribute binary code that is not Open source, and you are also not allowed to find the source code? How is that free?