Beyond the Code
or, how to win friends, influence people and make a living by writing open source software. It's not just about the code.
Follow me on Twitter as @jonobennett.
Tuesday 7 April 2009, 3:57 PM
Nice one, Debian
The quasi-religious wars between Linux and Free/Open/NetBSD advocates have been going on for years, with both technical and philosophical arguments put forward on both sides. There are plenty of things that the Linux kernel supports that FreeBSD doesn't currently, but having an alternative to the Linux kernel available is a smart move should efforts to the enforce patents against Linux actually get tested in court and succeed.
The FreeBSD kernel is likely to be immune, or at least far less susceptible to legal attacks than the Linux kernel because of its longer heritage and slightly different development model. In some cases, the code in FreeBSD has been around long enough that it's proof of prior art in itself. It's also a separate target for the patent trolls to aim at, hopefully meaning they're that bit busier and less successful.
Diversity is good in any environment, and having two kernels available to use with the Debian system — and by extension Ubuntu, we have to assume — will be a good thing even if the legal threats against Linux come to nought.
PreviousComments on this post
I can't say I can see how the BSD kernels would be immune to the majority of Microsoft's software idea patent attacks.
The older parts of the BSD kernel, perhaps. But newer portions may fall within the same patent risk minefield that all other non-trivial software codebases are privy to nowadays.
For example, if the FreeBSD project implements VFAT access, how do you propose they might do this without running across the same patent (yes, it's a bogus patent, but bear with me) that Microsoft proposes Linux has tress-passed?
If anything, Linux has a serious array of well-monied organisations that have a financial or philosophical vested interest in protecting it. The BSDs, by virtue of their licence and history, don't.
To my mind, this is what makes the Linux kernel safer terrain in any patent war.
I quite agree. Incidentally, I never could understand the BSD license.
To me it reads as 'Eat our lunch ... and don't even bother to bring the plate back'
Licensing is a matter of choice. Having software released under a BSD, MIT or Apache licence might well mean someone else can use it in a non-free manner, but it doesn't remove your ability to use it as free software, or redistribute it under a licence you prefer. You don't lose anything by using liberally licensed software like FreeBSD — you still have access to the source — and if others choose to use a closed, object code-only version that's their problem. It's certainly no worse than any other piece of proprietary software.
As for either FreeBSD or Linux being more resistant to patent litigation, the ideal situation would be that the patents used to attack them are shown to be invalid. As it is, I think that having two kernels available for Debian is a good thing anyway.
Certainly, I see no disadvantage in having additional Debian kernels (FreeBSD, Solaris). And there are advantages to the IT industry in avoiding monoculture (see: CyberInsecurity Report
All I raised a question to was the misguided belief that one could shift to FreeBSD to avoid Microsoft's software idea patents against Linux.
And hey, I was weaned on BSD 4.2 (no, not FreeBSD 4.2, but the original Berkeley Software Distribution 4.2, on Vaxen), so I have a soft spot for the platform ;-)
Certainly, I see no disadvantage in having additional Debian kernels (FreeBSD, Solaris). And there are advantages to the IT industry in avoiding monoculture (see: CyberInsecurity Report
All I raised a question to was the misguided belief that one could shift to FreeBSD to avoid Microsoft's software idea patents against Linux.
And hey, I was weaned on BSD 4.2 (no, not FreeBSD 4.2, but the original Berkeley Software Distribution 4.2, on Vaxen), so I have a soft spot for the platform ;-)
