scratchandgame

Why it is unfounded?? The sandbox is still a lie (flatseal is impractical security since it makes you become a security researcher overnight), apps are not properly filesystem-unveiled. But a new level of complexity.

I personally think it is trash…

They are better than those who cannot manage their own people.

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.

OpenBSD = Security

It is actually correctless. OpenBSD = Correctness + Simple + Free (free from copyleft too)

FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like

Citation???

NetBSD

maximum portability??

But up to NetBSD 10 (at the time writing it was not released) YOU DON’T HAVE SSL CERTIFICATES INSTALLED IN THE BASE SYSTEM !

That’s my warning :)