scratchandgame

Nothing prevents GNU software to do business

GNU already stated themselves, but they prohibit modification and redistribution: any modification must also fall under GPL. Perhaps I want my code public domain or 0BSD? In practical, commercial also mean modified.

From your writing I have seen you as a dogmatism of Marxism-Leninism. That's revisionism. Nowadays new Marxism learn about Marxism-Leninism, then talk about how the business could get better, and competitive with other Marxism (to make money for the capitalists.) to produce more high-quality products

Anyone dislike? Marxism is always against dogmatism.

At least I escape unreadable and unmodifiable GNU stuff

I saw your interest in Marxism-Leninism. Marx taught: Labor productivity is the premise for this society to win over the old society (poorly translated because I read translated textboot)

(Năng suất lao động là tiền đề để xã hội này chiến thắng xã hội cũ)

So the communists must learn to do business. Otherwise it is dogma, moralism (and soon become revisionism). Look at Viet Nam, we would have a pure capitalist government if we don't switch to market economy (reactionalists backed by US would rebel and they are supported by 3/4 Vietnamese poor people). Now poverty has fallen into history.

Chimera Linux is the point.

But it is project's philosophy, both BSD and GNU project will flame us if you teach them about licensing things

Disaster comes from our mouth

I hope they will not switch to AGPL.

for normal user that have nothing to deal with security I think?

I think no BSD expert will bother this place

I think you shouldn't argue on why bsd use the bsd license because no one would care, and I will stop here

We should focus on learning and programming, just like Vietnamese these day should be good on Marxism-Leninism that's taught in the university/college to have the right mindset and should't care about anarchism, liberalism, etc and focus on whatever science to help the country.

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?

You can redistribute binary code that is not Open source under a free license

there isn't a problem making OpenBSD nonfree in their opinion, the only problem is they cannot fix the binary code if it have bugs and "can't confirm if the blob contain malware"

Blobs are not even FOSS, so they can only be implemented as Linux is not FOSS.

FOSS???????????

This is source code.

They can exist side by side with linux (like you install gcc and openssh on your linux). I saw microcode are packaged, not installed by default (about arch linux)

If they are linked against linux they must be gpl

Can you read the gpl or that's just long and right and everyone must use it to support GNU

using a license that promote giving code back (put restriction on redistribution) for coreutils, gcc, libc, etc.. has borned Chimera Linux (which point out the quality problem of GNU (in code!) by using BSD userland and LLVM and musl)

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??

It is controversial for outsider

bringing it to developers is a way to waste their time

https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#42

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.

OpenBSD try to remove GPL licensed software from base. (with free alternative)

Like, anything they do will just be used by Apple, Sony etc. and they dont give shit back

This is what the OpenBSD team want, and also appreciated by other BSD developers.