Is Sony Abusing FreeBSD with Playstation?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2024
- The intersection of open-source software and proprietary systems often sparks debate, and Sony’s Playstation is at the heart of a current controversy. This article delves into the complexities of Sony’s use of FreeBSD’s MIT License for its Playstation operating system, examining whether this constitutes an abuse of open-source principles.
Website Article: christitus.com/sony-playstati...
.
►► Digital Downloads ➜ www.cttstore.com
►► Reddit ➜ / christitustech
►► Titus Tech Talk ➜ / titustechtalk
►► Twitch ➜ / christitustech 
Наука
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
No. Because the BSD license gives full freedom to anybody who uses it.
I was just going to say this.
Isn't that the big advantage of using BSD over something Linux based.
Exactly. BSD is true freedom, no strings attached (except just give props).
Right
People need to learn what copy left and copy right is
@CrispyPotatoChipwhy does mit licensing suck? It is very permissive. You are even allowed to make money with open source code and its derivatives
@@rethardotv5874it sucks for people who care about the health and growth of the upstream project. The MIT license doesn't require contributing modifications back to upstream so most people don't. Thus, it is easy for fragmentation to happen and for the mainline version of the code to become stagnant unless their is some organization behind it providing new features. Really, a viral license like GPL is best if you want to promote community given GROWTH of a project whereas MIT (or BSD) is best if you have an organization that still intends to drive the code but want to share it for free - or, alternatively, you have a project that is already "dead" and you just want to share it with the world.
Apple has left the chat.
Apple about to leave the US, haha
@@avidwriter2882 explain? They’re also being sued by the EU not just the US
@@burntxela1258 yeah they're dead if they lose, and they're probably gonna lose.
I feel its important to point out Darwin and by extension MacOS has only ever had a FreeBSD based userland. The Kernel is entirely from the NEXT acquisition it is the Mach Kernel.
@@AryamanSriram Lobbying has entered the chat😂
Many companies have been using FreeBSD instead of Linux to build their products for decades because of the license terms, and have professional engineers with intimidate knowledge of the system. Fixes and enhancements make their way back to the base system one way or another because it’s a lot easier than maintaining an internal fork. It isn’t always public knowledge because many companies don’t want their competitors knowing what they are doing, or how they do it.
watching this from MacOS-BSD...😁
It used to be the case that BSD licensed code was used on more devices than any other license because the IP stack that was used on virtually all network connected devices was BSD code.
Shoutout to Grand Central Dispatch for existing in FreeBSD sources
Also shoutout to Illumos for being the reason we are not in the dark ages
How about Nintendo? They are using FreeBSD as their platform for their Switch console operating system.
Nintendo can't DMCA them. 😆
The Nintendogs Nintendon't care.
As if people fail to criticize and mock Nintendo? Why are you acting like that's something alien to gamers
I’ve heard conflicting information on that. I heard that Horizon (the Switch’s OS) is actually bespoke and only uses specific code derived from BSD for specific components (such as the network stack) rather than being built on FreeBSD itself.
@@plows2940 its mix of bsd, android, and nintendo proprietary code. cmiiw
Netflix just gained +100 respect in my book.
BSD also has kind of a "Thank you BSD Page" sony isn't even listed there ...
Netflix is still trash for their racist politics.
yes where is the required attribution
Sony probably asked NOT to be listed there.
Sony hides their open source contributions.
@@joshallen128 On a PS5 for example...
Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses
Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
Isn't the BSD license pretty similar to the MIT? They can use it commercially without contributing changes but they need to acknowledge that they used it.
Yeah, for most of the BSD/MIT licenses there are clauses stating that regardless of release as source or binary, usage of software licensed under one of those BSD/MIT licenses requires attribution. However...
There is now a 0 clause license, which does not require attribution. I'm not sure what is actually released under that license though, as far as OSS OS.
Been using the BSD's for 25 years and not really kept up to date with what uses which version of these licenses. LOL
It is, and the BSD license is what FreeBSD uses, not the MIT license (no idea where titus got that from).
It literally says that 1. you have to redistribute your code with the BSD license, and 2. there's no warranty, but you can use it any way you want.
@@Felix-ve9hs "It literally says that 1. you have to *_redistribute_* *_your_* *_code_* *_with_* *_the_* *_BSD_* *_license"_*
No, it doesn't...
1. Redistributions of source code *_must_* *_retain_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form *_must_* *_reproduce_* *_the_* *_above_* *_copyright_* *_notice,_* this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
You must provide attribution under this license, but *_NOT_* code.
@@Felix-ve9hs it also says you have to pay me
@@MrTweetyhack I will pay you in potatoes
Please turn off the motion sickness background. PLEASE
I second this
I had to scroll the video out of view.
I like it
Was trying something new... It didn't go as planed and I didn't feel like re-recording haha. I won't do it again.
@@ChrisTitusTech Thanks. Trying something new is GOOD. It's just I get sea sick just looking at a boat. I don't even need to be on the boat...
JunOS from Juniper Networks is based on FreeBSD - they acknowledge it and support the FreeBSD Foundation.
Iirc weren't they pivoting to Linux in their newer Junos Evolved?
@@zandr0 Their new stuff is Linux based like Vmware ESXi but all their special sauce runs in user space via their own microservices architecture.
Chris there is still timing to do a thumbnail with sony executives with bsd horns
Man a missed opportunity!
Sony has abused me by having games only run at 30fps on PS5
They're giving you that cinematic experience.
Don’t buy consoles then
Got to go PC, takes more work and money to get PC to give you that consoled experience, but it is worth it. I haven't owned a new console since the Xbox 360
Consoles are for people who are underachievers.
Does thy ps5 also sound loud like the ps4?
I do think GPL > MIT any day of the week, but hey, if a project IS MIT licensed you have every right in the world to use it.
Yeah the canoe GPL is toxic to Microsoft because their business is selling products like Windows and services like office 365 which is why they won't touch the agpl the new GPL. The only touch stuff they can add directly into their proprietary systems.
Ditto. When I release my software using MIT, it is either because I don't care or because I care too much to leave it up to me alone.
@@vicsar you obviously care otherwise you'd just release it into the public domain that way you dont try to go after license violators forgetting to put in your attribution
@@joshallen128 True that. My ego is still hard to tame.
I think Creative Commons Zero (CC0 Public Domain) is the best license. No credit required, relicensable, max usefulness to everyone.
BSD license is not MIT (though practically the same). Many companies that use FreeBSD (like Apple) rather people not know what code they are contributing back so there is a assumption that they just take and don't give.
One of the beauties of FreeBSD is it's license
LLVM was mostly funded by Apple - MacOS is another operating system that is based on FreeBSD.
The Userland came from FreeBSD, the kernel is a Mach kernel
LLVM / Clang > GCC
@@CJ123for cross compiling hell yeah, especially the zig build tooling has been amazing for me.
But for speed, gcc all the way, nothing tears through C code like gcc. Its just such a hassle to work with imo.
Well yeah they did pay Chris Lattner wages for a bit :p
Apple is the last true BSD workstation but Apple come from earlier BSD and had Unix's code probably so for avoiding being sue it got the Unix's license... MacOS is OLDER than FreeBSD.
not taking cred is massive
You made it sound like FreeBSD developers compromise on something, taking money from businesses. While, in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong in s/w development for money. Otherwise how can s/w developers know their work is useful? Only when someone puts money where their mouth is.
I never owned any Playstation, but I thought the biggest problem people had with Sony and Playstations was the time they disabled the Other OS feature on PS 3. More recently they almost took away TV shows that people thought they had "bought".
Don't forget the Sony rootkit scandal.
If I was a big company like Playstation I would make it quite vocal in credit in the instruction manual, on the box outside when you buy it and somewhere obvious on what you call a "Playstation desktop" that my console is based on FreeBSD. I'd provide a link to the website and thank them. I would pay them a lot of money and always be really respectful.
During product launches i'd probably would start of my speeches thanking FreeBSD! I don't use FreeBSD but I always want people to know that I respect that OS and I might use it one day. Who knows.... I am grateful for all the good that comes out of FreeBSD!
In general BSD family works better tbh. Comparing Gnu Linux to MacOS, Android to iPhone... I need to be realistic: Linux
I've developed quite a lot of open source code under the more permissive licenses, like the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. I can say that I've never expected users of that code to contribute back to it. If they do, that's great, but I chose those licenses for a reason. Sony can do as it pleases, as did Apple. It's a testament to the FreeBSD code base that companies would want to use that as a foundation for their products, and I have to imagine the FreeBSD developers are proud of that.
i get a full blue screen activate windows notification and i can't close it for 5 seconds,then when i want to close its open the settings.Its really annoing when gaming.(i used a spoofer before and reinstalled the windows ).Can you help me?
I've used Windows since I was a kid and that never happened to me. Full blue screen? That's weird
@@PhilipMarcYT Yea and it says we can’t activate Windows on this device at the moment.(in the past 2months)
sorry for your misfortune, never had it on windows. only think i can advice is to ditch windows, this os family gets weirder and more broken anually
The license of FreeBSD is the BSD license.
Cool video btw !
I really liked this video and how honestly you're taking about it.
Btw cool background but having it move constantly is a bit disorienting, perhaps have it move a few short times during the video?
viper im confused why your timestamp just says "NETFLIX" while talking about your editing and speedrun
It is all about the license. If the license allows it, you can do whatever you want with that piece of code/software. I didn't know anyone was really talking about Sony abusing FreeBSD, tbh. Kinda surprising that someone would know about the existence of FreeBSD but not understand how its license works 🤷♂
As an aside, FreeBSD uses the 2-clause BSD license afaik, not the MIT license. While MIT is very popular amongst open-source software enthusiasts, I only know of two major pieces of software that use an MIT-derived license - zsh and X11.
There's some portion of the Linux users that take that line. The reality tends to be more muddied due to how expensive it can be to maintain a fork just to avoid having to give anything back. The great thing about opensource is that even if a company is truly giving nothing back, it costs the project basically nothing. And as long as enough other folks are giving, the project can continue to exist.
Thanks for telling us about this, I had no idea Sony and Nintendo Switch use freebsd. It is too bad FreeBSD isn't upto to par to Linux Desktop distros for newer hardware drivers, etc...I was considering trying it out; but not sure 100% yet.
Having the screen behind you is a cool effect! Neat perspective!
Why does BSD License alllows that in the first place? And if BSD allows so, then how do they get an iota of right to whine about it?
Chris, what linux is either fast or faster than FreeBSD? With Gnome?
try GhostBSD or OpenIndiana
Linux is always faster than BSD in terms of processing throughput, but BSD has less latency. As long, you use lightweight DE like xfce4 or Wayland WMs like sway, it should be alright. Gnome is quite heavy, so expect some performance drawbacks on old system.
@@mearetom Thx, There is a Linux with a latency as good as FreeBSD or better?
It is crazy what sony has accomplished for Free BSD with gaming on their platform and yet they have not allowed any of their technologies to potentially benefit Free BSD and maybe turn it into an actual alternative to Windows and Linux as a Gaming Operating System.
No it's not crazy. That's how money works.
@@oraclejmt Does not mean it is not crazy, money works for all sorts of things that accomplish nothing despite how "Money works". Seeing a company as cringe as Sony in recent years turn a piece of excellent software that is not so accessible to gamers on the Desktop into one of the most performant low level, low overhead gaming experiences on their platforms is pretty whacko (crazy I mean) when Xbox is still using their desktop software on a console at the cost of performance despite being more powerful. What would be really crazy is if some years down the road Sony made that shit open source or allowed it to be used on PC in some way, we maybe would have a 3d contender in the PC gaming space but for now it will just have to be crazy that they did it at all.
@@n0viewers409 Calling a company registered on the stock market for "cringe" is a very immature way to view how business works. You're too young to understand, i'm afraid. You might need to educate yourself, read some books, touch some grass.
See this is why I watch Chris. He is willing to admit when his assumptions are shown to be wrong and then explains how he was wrong. When he is right he explains why it is bad.
M. Kirk McKusick, one of the major figures in the history of the BSDs says its license isn't copyright like Microsoft, nor is it copy left like the GPL. Instead it's "copycentre" as in you can take it, make a bunch of copies of the code and do whatever
It makes more sense when you think of its history originating from a university research project
that's what i thought. it's just researchers wanting to see if they have anything that is worthwhile for big industry.
Yes, the honor system.
copyneutral copycentric or i guess public domain like permissive enough like public domain but minimal restrictions
This man and his husband are my two heroes and, drum sound, using a Mac! LOL
GPL is actually the one in the middle. It is less restrictive than closed source but more restrictive than BSD.
That is good, I am using FreeBSD as a backup storage server at home.
My 2nd NAS in other words, I decided to run FreeBSD to have something that was a different ecosystem from ZFS On Linux that runs the rest and my other NAS.
If one breaks, I have the 2nd one to run.
(loving the new format of the videos :DD)
Love your honesty man...keep up the good work.
What is the diference between open source software and public domain software?
Another case I can remember a company abusing the GPL license is Korg with their OASYS, Kronos and most likely Nautilus workstations. Inside the Kronos and Nautilus, you're gonna find a Mini-ITX motherboard with an embedded Intel Atom (Nautilus uses an ASRock Industrial motherboard with some ports removed). They use a modified Linux kernel with RTAI extensions along with some other bits of proprietary code. Afaik, no one went after them or reported that. I think they provide that bit of source code in the recovery discs that come with the unit, but you have to buy the workstation to have access to them and they distribute those modifications as a binary Linux. Any attempts to make those modifications public have been met with a Cease and Desist from the company. Yamaha uses MontaVista Linux on all their current workstations, but they do mention that in their product pages and you can find said modifications for download.
The early OASyS's were using such a small kernel to basically boot into their proprietary software, I think they avoided the GPL issue by not distributing that. I'm not much of an expert on the legal side.
That's why those too permissive (BSD, MIT) licenses harm FOSS more than anything else. It's not just about money, you know. More FOSS is always 'more better'. When a corp takes an open source product and derives a close source from it, thew whole world loses
Anyone could take a BSD licensed project and create a GPL licensed fork of it. The BSD licensed project will have more potential users and thus more potential contributors, so it will likely remain the more popular version.
@@yahm0n Anyone could take a BSD licensed project and create a closed source of it. That's the problem
@@henrymach Redis is an example of a company trying to make a restricted source fork of permissively licensed software. A fork that retains the permissive license will outcompete it for mindshare and the more restricted source fork will effectively fail. For projects where mindshare is a top concern, the most permissive license has a huge advantage.
Some might be surprised to know that some enterprise storage vendors use FreeBSD two big ones are
Dell/EMC Isilon (now called Powerscale) uses FreeBSD with the custom OneFS clustered filesystem; Dell stopped advertising what version of FreeBSD its based off of.
Netapp Clustered Data ONTAP uses FreeBSD with there own custom raid tech and filesystem (WAFL aka Write Anywhere File Layer)
Wow I never knew any of this so this is pretty cool to learn
Edit: Don’t worry I won’t buy a PS5 as I have a pc and a Steam Deck!
PS5 is not worth it without the jailbreak
My man a legend for having a steam deck with linux than that proprietary blob called rog ally
@@GrimCheatingGuy I didn't even know it had jailbreaks for it, neat
@@beyblader261 I love that little its just so impressive with what I can do to it and what it can do
The MIT and BSD licences are similar (and different from the GPL in that you don't have to give back modified code), but not identical.
2:06 Most of the BSD/MIT licenses have clauses requiring attribution. There is a 0 clause license, but not everything released under these licenses is licensed under that 0 clause license.
Note, on a PS5 for example...
Settings -> Guide & Tips, Health and Safety, and Other Information -> Legal Information -> Open Source Software Licenses
Here you can currently see 87 pages worth of mostly MIT license attributions.
Is it actually any abuse if they don't give anything back? Isn't the FreeBSD license allowing that compared to the Linux license?
Yes, it does and even encourages it.
Yeah, it’s quite a clickbait
Netflix is pretty much keeping BSD alive. And i guess Sony, but BSD needs devs badly since everyone's using Linux. Especially for the future of BSD firewalls.
Chris titus is the GOAT
Thanks for posting this video.
It's human to go with an opinion into a topic but it's mature and wise to change it when faced with other facts.
Part of the motivation for companies like sony to upload some of the code upsource is that it is easier for their own development. It makes sense. As long as they don't give an advantage to their competitors they don't mind other people using that code too if it makes their own workflow easier. In regard to the PS5, Chris, just look quickly at both the PS5 and the latest XBox and notice how the XBox has nice holes for airflow while the PS5 has a lot of decorative plastic on top. Just based on that alone I would have more confidence in the XBox surviving. Function over form for hardware.
Out of all the things I've read today, this is the dumbest. Consoles aren't cooled by convection. They're cooled by fans. You don't need holes on the top for hot air to escape
@@Rainsoakedcoat Of all thet things I've read today, this is by far the dumbest. With holes more air will get out than with a lot of plastic, fans don't magically push that air through that plastic. A lot of PS5's went broken early, just because you like to play on a PS5 doesn't make the box a good design. This round was won by Microsoft, in regard to the hardware.
I agree it is a good thing when a big company uses something open source but what I disagree with is when a big company takes open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary product I think that if open source code used the finished product should be open source
Is it in the licence that they have to contribute i mean open source is for any one to use i feel like not just for anyone and everyone who uses it to be required to develop it unless its in the licensing
Glad to see this being addressed. While people like to talk about big tech profiting off of the hard work of open source devs, and there are many examples of this to be fair, the truth is many companies contribute quite a bit to open source.
I mean if it's FOSS doesn't it imply you can do whatever you want? I'd assume they edited the code enough so it's not the same as the current FreeBSD?
i read the title to think sony is abusing the freebsd developers... no as long as sony adheres to the rather permissive like nature of freebsd's code and license they are good. executable/source code attribution required only
No, something being Free and Open Source Software does NOT imply in doing whatever you want. That only applies to some really permissive licenses such as BSD, MIT and some of the Creative Commons licenses. Most copyleft licenses such as GPL impose certain obligations onto licensees which, in my opinion, is a _very good thing_ ™because it levels the play field: Sony can't just take GPL code, make changes and never contribute anything the way it can with BSD-licensed code, for instance.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 yes in this case the GNU GPL is a rather liberal yet restrictive conservative license, it conserves the freedoms bestowed unto downstream third party users and devs
Which BSD is IOS based on?
propietary
I think that companies using open source software wether or not they are taking advantage is always good. Hear me out. If these companies start converting to open source than it will force people in the tech world to need to learn and use open source. The more space taken up by open source the more prevalent open source will be.
Short answer: No.
Big corporations are always hyper questionable. When you work with them, you're often getting big rewards for selling something in exchange, often you're sold. As the big company up, almost always reaps every single bit of the value.
I thought that FreeBSD used the BSD license? Also, I think that there’s an attribution requirement for MIT and BSD isn’t there?
That's a really cool backdrop!
4:01 The reason they probably don’t want people to know is because of the culture in Japan. They’re very humble and you are taught not to take credit for things, even if you do something deserving of credit.
If anything the project gets publicity.
My PS2 Slim (soft modded) still works after all of these years which I purchased brand new around 06. I also have a PS3 model with the top sliding panel to access the disc instead of a mechanical ejecting tray which I purchased used about 2 years ago. They still both work great. I'm not interested in a PS4 or 5! And most of the best titles were on the PS2.
Sir Chris Titus, I got rid of Bixby on my S9 completely. Thanks. Earlier I removed the side Bixby button out with a knife.
Sony abuses a lot of things with PlayStation
My view on open source licenses is the rant included with Paku Paku.
The developers of FreeBSD decided to use a license that allows anyone to make anything with it, so it’s fine if anyone makes anything with it, even if that thing is proprietary.
Wish there had been a prompt to skip the intro if you know approximately how the MIT license works. Excited for the rest of the vid but the first two minutes aren't "for me" but im glad you included it for others.
So just need decryption keys and then you could technically add missing parts that would be useful for making PS5 better all around.
Short answer is NO.
Pretty sure Nintendo uses Unix on the Switch
I dont mind the clouds in the background but maybe stop the room panning lol
You shouldn’t really compare the graphics sw abstraction with the OS, they’re very different areas and there’s still considerable proprietary engineering because it massively differentiates the customer experienc, whereas the OS, doesn’t really…the whole world went Unix/POSIX decades ago
yoooo the background go nuts ngl
Isn't FreeBSD using the BSD license, not the MIT license? But I guess it works the same.
Also at one point Microsoft copied code from FreeBSD (or was it 4.4 BSD Lite - I think FreeBSD is a fork if that?) for their network stack (now replaced), and I think so did Nintendo? Not sure. Ah, also macOS started out as a combination of the Mach micro kernel and BSD (again, not sure if FreeBSD or 4.4 BSD Lite). I think even some drivers in Linux were copied from FreeBSD at some point? BSD code is spread around a lot.
I use to use Linux, then switched to BSD so I can customise the system without being legally obligated to share my changes.
Background looks dope
If you think about what companies pay to their employees and what they keep as profit, all companies get much more than they pay for, not only in this particular case
Sure, but... without that factor the companies and their products wouldn't exist.
I don't understand why just because a company is big that they must contribute more to FOSS they use.
Was Apple stealing too?? It's based on BSD
Can you really steal something that is free for everyone?
Probably.
FreeBSD comes with the BSD license. Attribution is part of the license. And llvm/clang is donated by Apple.
Well, that's the purpose of the license and why it was created. Tough.
The GPL is a bit like if you ask your dad if you can loan your friend a toy, and he says "Make sure he brings it back nicer than you gave it to him." The BSD License is more like your dad says "Sure whatever, its your toy."
Given that FreeBSD isn't licensed under MIT, wouldn't it be best to edit the article and annotate the video or something?
sidenote: the moving background isnt working well for my focus :)
Nope, the BSD license was specifically made so you could make a profit from it, Contrary to the GPL license Richard Stallman create because he didn't like the MIT license. BSD is not Linux lol.
BSD is BSD-licensed... BSD does accept MIT licensed code - however all of the core is BSD licensed.
It's amazing we have BSD licensed so liberally and some pretty good variants being Free, Open and Net. They are similar and different to Linux. I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2. I like how userland and kernel are distributed together. I like how you can use packages and ports to install software. Things that aren't as good is the vilume of information compared to Linux. Also hardware support is not quite the same level as Linux. If you're keen give it an install.
You should do a video about Apple on this. I am not an Apple hater, in fact I like them quite a lot. I’m not a fan of Google. Just by reading some of these comments, people seem to think macOS was based on, or built on-top of FreeBSD.. which is absolutely not the case. They did use some of the FreeBSD libraries, such as the networking stack. But today they have both diverged so much they hardly have anything in common besides being different BSD “distros” for a lack of better analogy.
??? Sony are under no moral obligation whatsoever to contribute. Have you read the MIT licence?
Correct, the BSD licenses allows this.
and so what if they are? FreeBSD license technically permits what Sony is doing - this is the downside of this license.
If you release code to be used by the world, why would you be offended by people using it?
@@RavenMobile you missed the point of what i was stating - the freebsd license allows for this , if a party that takes the code makes changes, they are not obligated to release those changes back into the code/community , and so for anyone complaining about this , is just pee'ing against the wind.
@@breadmoth6443 For the FreeBSD project, there's no difference between someone not using your software and someone using your software and not giving back.
In most cases, people will eventually give something back to the project, so it's always a win-win for them whether they get something back or not. :)
I agree, this is the only reason that stops me from using any *BSD software.
@@mearetom So you don't use SSH?
Doesn't FreeBSD use the BSD license?
How is there a FreeBSD version of the new Call of Duty games but no Linux version?
That's very interesting. Either way, it is their right to use and redistribute the software in whatever way they want. That's in the license agreement, but also that's part of the spirit of free/open source. The only way to stop it would be to make the license agreement force Sony to act differently by using their software. Which is anti-freedom
Sony is a fantastic friend of FOSS. even on Android Sony have the open devices aops program were they release the AOSP code for all theirs phones years after they don't release any more updates on their phones, they release open source alternatives for close source funcions on Xperia UI, and they even give Xperia phones to developers of the program. But even with that they only support their phones with updates for 3 years with 2 os upgrades.
Here my 2 cents: the GPL-license is better than the FreeBSD-license because the first allows anyone to use the code and simply uses the principle of reciprocity: if this code helps you out, great, but if you change the code then you keep it open source because other people might get helped out by that. Simple and just. The FreeBSD-license also aims to help people by sharing the code but allows companies to close-source it after changing it, so there is no reciprocity, it is not as just. Of course companies like Sony love it that they can keep the code a secret after using the work of all the people who opensourced the core of their code, they love it that they don't have to give back. Some of these companies might give back to some extend but that is not necessarily the case. Does Sony abuse FreeBSD? Legally not, we can argue about them morally abusing it.
There is also a counter-argument. If you do not contribute to FreeBSD, you get technical debt because your patches add up and never make it upstream.
If you send all your patches upstream and integrate them into FreeBSD, the workload is much less, and the community does most of the work for you.
Sony's unwillingness to contribute literally causes them a lot of work, money, and developer time that could be spent elsewhere.
On the other hand if the people making FreeBSD didn't want that happening that would be using a different license
@@Felix-ve9hs That is what I hinted at with "might giving back to some extend".
The majority of people using the code from the command line are also not contributing to the project in any way...
@@hoi-polloi1863 That is true but how is that relevant? The GPL-license is not about having to contribute, it is about having to contribute if you extend the code.
i'd say this: every major software corporation is abusing open source. that's the whole point of "free" market capitalism: you socialize the risks & expenses, privatize the results. the mechanism of this expense socialization can change: before 1970s the expenses of communications & IT were socialized via government research that was essentially privatized for near-zero price, now it's socialized via open-source usage, in the coming decades it will be probably socialized via spyware and LLMs.
It doesn't mean that companies never reinvest in society (many of them clearly do), but they never reinvest the full price (the delta is the profit), or it wouldn't be capitalism.
I'd say if sony did fund LLVM that is more than all of what netflix has done by itself.
If the title / headline is worded as an overly attention grabbing question ... the answer is always no.
Thanks Gman
"Abusing"?
BSD license makes software free as a bird. Everyone can do with it what they want.
FreeBSD is not using the MIT license. They use the BSD license.
HAHA, love it! SO authentic.