From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 10 15:47:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E90516A419 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:47:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7326D13C458 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:47:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 032338C11C; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:47:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:47:37 -0600 To: aryeh.friedman@gmail.com Message-ID: <20080110154737.GA20976@soaustin.net> References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:16:44 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Why the FreeBSD license will not be changing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:47:38 -0000 The FreeBSD license will not be changing. How can I say this even though I am not an official spokesman for the project? Let me explain. (a disclaimer first: I am on both the bugbusting team and the ports management team, and have been for several years. However, I'm not using either of those as a basis for the above claim. Thus, everything here is my _own opinion_.) FreeBSD is 3 things. You understand 1.5 of those things. - FreeBSD is a codebase. - FreeBSD is a community of users and developers. - FreeBSD is a *culture*. It's easy to see FreeBSD as a "codebase". There's a web page, and CVS scripts, and it all comes together as all these bits on a disk. It _looks_ like a regular product. But it isn't. The software is a byproduct of a process. In that process, a community of users and developers works together. Mostly they share two key goals: - To create something "really neat" - To have fun. That's the *culture*. To the extent that culture exists, we will continue to attract new users and developers, and retain the old ones. If it doesn't, we won't. And: ***every attempt that has been made in the past to change that culture has failed***. As well it _should_. Because once the culture goes away, all we have is the pile of bits. If forced to sign something that said "you _must_ contribute back", my firm belief is that most of the current developers would walk. I certainly would -- and I say that as someone who has contributed a great deal in the past. I simply won't put myself in a position where I feel _compelled_ to do so. It's my free time, and I'll do what I want with it, TYVM. Our *culture* is a very delicate dance between self-interest and altruism. (I'm not familiar with anything other than Open Source that has this unique balance, but possibly amateur radio comes close.) The FreeBSD community has always vehemently protested any attempt to change the culture by e.g. turning the development process into something directed by companies. This is a feature. Frankly, if people want to get told to do something they don't want to do, it just starts looking like work, and there's a lot better-paying jobs out there than Open Source will ever be able to generate. Letting some outside entity direct the project would break the culture. We would be killing the goose to get the golden egg. Having said that, there is increasing interest from some companies in funding individuals to work on specific projects. To the extent that this work can be integrated without hurting the existing culture, I'm all for it. If we can have some kind of hybrid model: fine. But if anyone wants to take FreeBSD and make a commercial enterprise out of it, fine, go ahead and do so, but please do it somewhere else. Now, with that background, let me return to my original point. I don't have the power to go change the bits that define the license. Even if I did, I wouldn't. Even core, who I suppose theoretically could, wouldn't. If they did, they'd all be kicked out on their butts in the next election -- if there were any developers left who hadn't already forked and started a new project with the bits and the original culture. So, the license isn't going to change -- and even if it did, the people that changed it would be left behind as the community simply moved over to a new name that reflected the original culture. I said earlier that you understood 1.5 things. You see the codebase. You have a poor understanding of the community -- which is why you feel you've been badly received to this point -- you simply don't understand how we work together as it is. But the thing you have absolutely no concept of, for whatever reason, is the culture. Our culture is fine. Our license is fine. If you don't like them: start your own. The bits are there for the taking. Now please, go away and stop putting your plans for whatever project under whatever culture you're trying to establish, under our banner, on our mailing lists. Thanks. mcl