Looks like a bunch of NetBSD code was used in Sony PSP. Fun!(feyrer.de)
feyrer.de
Looks like a bunch of NetBSD code was used in Sony PSP. Fun!
http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/bx/blosxom.cgi/index.front?-tags=sony
6 comments
Last I checked this was in line with the NetBSD license:
Yes, it is following the letter of the law, but the NetBSD people are also free to complain about it.
OpenBSD does the same: they list a bunch of vendors at [1] but they note on [2]:
> In the 10 years since the inception of the OpenSSH project, these companies have contributed not even a dime of thanks in support of the OpenSSH project (despite numerous requests).
1: http://www.openssh.com/users.html 2: http://www.openssh.com/
OpenBSD does the same: they list a bunch of vendors at [1] but they note on [2]:
> In the 10 years since the inception of the OpenSSH project, these companies have contributed not even a dime of thanks in support of the OpenSSH project (despite numerous requests).
1: http://www.openssh.com/users.html 2: http://www.openssh.com/
Sure, they can complain.
But if they're going to, they should just impose more restrictions on using their code. Maybe even a copyleft license.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
But if they're going to, they should just impose more restrictions on using their code. Maybe even a copyleft license.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
There is no complaining on this page though. He just seems excited that code from NetBSD has been that widely deployed,
and now pf, too.
http://callfortesting.org/macpf/
http://callfortesting.org/macpf/
Surely, everyone is welcome to use the code. But (IMO) some sort of contribution back to the community whether in the form of code or funding would help the ecosystem, especially when a large company like Sony is concerned, which can easily afford this.
Exactly, that's why there are copyleft licenses.
There's law and then there's social pressure and shaming. Not everything has to be legislated or written down in a contract.
It doesn't have to be set down in a contract, but if you explicitly chose to give someone permission to do something, it would be petty to turn around and complain when they did exactly what you told them they could do. This isn't some little loophole Sony's exploiting: It's the largest distinguishing feature between BSD and GPL. If the NetBSD people have a problem with this, there is nothing stopping them from switching to GPLv3 or MPL or anything else. But it looks like they don't actually have a problem with it, and the HN title is editorializing.
EDIT: For posterity, when this thread started, the title was something like "Sony uses NetBSD code in PSP, refuses to contribute back".
EDIT: For posterity, when this thread started, the title was something like "Sony uses NetBSD code in PSP, refuses to contribute back".
I am not a NetBSD developer. I put in the title what I felt, but did not intend to initiate a flame-war on licenses, and therefore edited the title.
I don't think the NetBSD community complains anything about such issues. (At least I don't see it anywhere in their discussion forums).
I don't think the NetBSD community complains anything about such issues. (At least I don't see it anywhere in their discussion forums).
Why change the headline?
"NetBSD code in Sony Playstation Portable Logix pointed me at the license of the Sony Playstation Portable (PSP), which looks like a bunch of NetBSD code was used. Fun." is a lot more positive than the headline used.
"NetBSD code in Sony Playstation Portable Logix pointed me at the license of the Sony Playstation Portable (PSP), which looks like a bunch of NetBSD code was used. Fun." is a lot more positive than the headline used.
Alright. Updated. I did not want a flamewar :)
NetBSD is under BSD license. They don't have to contribute back.
It would be polite, and NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD all have frameworks for companies to contribute money. Some folks just don't, but the license doesn't require it.
Companies that modify the code would do well to contribute that code back. It really isn't a matter of nicety in that circumstance, but a cost savings measure. Constantly having to patch after each release or, worse, being stuck because the community picked a different solution since the company's solution was not presented makes for increased costs. Losing the testing and expertise of the community should be incentive enough.
I have never believed requiring participation like a copyleft license would actually improves things. They don't want to engage and forced engagement really isn't going to help you. Let them learn the problems of going it alone.
Companies that modify the code would do well to contribute that code back. It really isn't a matter of nicety in that circumstance, but a cost savings measure. Constantly having to patch after each release or, worse, being stuck because the community picked a different solution since the company's solution was not presented makes for increased costs. Losing the testing and expertise of the community should be incentive enough.
I have never believed requiring participation like a copyleft license would actually improves things. They don't want to engage and forced engagement really isn't going to help you. Let them learn the problems of going it alone.
Sometimes the GPL is a win simply because "otherwise upstream won't have our patches" isn't a high enough short-term cost to overcome the bureaucratic inertia required to release them, but "otherwise we can't use their code at all" makes them compare the cost of license clearance to the cost of reimplementing the GPL'd code.
I'd rather have organizations that get the deal then companies forced into it. To often we get "code dumps" with the GPL and not an engaged company.
Changed the title. I think I made the title sound more negative.
Erm. 2006?