Theo de Raadt Discusses OpenBSD and Beyond 476
emil writes to tell us that NewsForge (Slashdot Sister Site) is running an interview with OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt. In the interview Theo explores the upcoming release of OpenBSD 3.9, continuing financial difficulties, and some of the tension between the OpenBSD team and other businesses that some feel are taking advantage of the free software without giving anything back. In related news the Jem Report has an interesting writeup that expounds on widespread difficulties that could be faced if the OpenBSD project continues its downward spiral because of their parallel development of OpenSSH.
SunSSH (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure they'll find out when everyone else does.
Re:Iff..... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a simple matter of importing code, to duplicate the changes in the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset would be prohibitively difficult. Also, much of the improved security comes at the expense of performance or functionality.
Re:what a whiner (Score:5, Interesting)
For a business that uses OpenBSD code, it would just make good business sense to support the project at a fraction of what it would cost to develop the same code in-house. It is ridiculous that Sun wouldn't even cover the travel expenses of an OpenBSD developer to go their conference, because the value of the developer's hours would have far exceeded such travel expenses. That's just simply bad business.
As a California Corp Apple helped pay for BSD (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's far simpler than that. Apple and SCO *paid for* BSD. BSD was paid for by the taxpayers of California, including corporations like Apple and SCO. Perhaps Theo noticed a "Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved" somewhere in his review of the source code. Perhaps Apple and SCO believe they have contributed more than Theo. Besides cash Apple has also contributed formerly closed source, for example the HFS+ support in Darwin. Self serving, so what, Theo, RMS, and a host of others aren't?
I use OpenBSD and despite Theo's nonsense I support it by buying a CD every year. If Theo want's his pet projects funded he needs to learn to stop pissing off large potential contibutors, DARPA for example.
Re:I bought the T-shirt (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds almost like a threat (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because if they don't, then Theo de Raadt will shoot this adorable rabbit with "OpenSSH" written on it? Meh.
I mean, I'm sure that the loss of OpenBSD would be a sad thing for the open source community, but this entire fundraising drive just smells like the old Oral Roberts "if I don't raise 8.7 million dollars, God will call me home" thing. It seems rather unbecoming of a pillar of the open source community like OpenBSD to undermine the "the marketplace of ideas created by copylefted code means we can give our product away and still support ourselves" message of open source by floating this "WE CAN'T JUST GIVE OUR PRODUCT AWAY AND STILL SUPPORT OURSELVES!! YOU, GIVE ME MONEY!!" message on top of it.
Anti-Theo sentiments are muddying the point here (Score:5, Interesting)
His request is very reasonable - everyone is benefitting, and those who are in a position to give a little back should do so. He didn't say fund the project, he said contribute a little. Jeez, anything really.
This whole Slashdot anti-Theo movement is lame, it's like watching jocks push the nerdy quiet kid around in high school, which is a bit ironic considering that many of us *were* those nerdy quiet kids. Stop trying to be part of the "in" crowd by bashing this guy and read the article with an objective eye.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dumb question, but if you can take BSD-licensed open-source code and put it in closed-source code, why can't you take the same code and GPL it (maybe make slight trivial modifications to make the software unique before GPL'ing)? I mean, it would most likely piss the BSD team off if someone did this, but legally speaking, is there a reason it cannot be done?
Re:Problem with BSD licencing (Score:5, Interesting)
They paid for ancient BSD development. However after the court cases were over, that went away.
They have every *legal* right to use it.
They have an ethical responsibility to contribute but this is in no way required.
Morality is individual, so were you talking about a person it would be their choice as to what their morality is. As you're discussing corporations, they inherently and as required by law are entirely amoral.
This is certainly about as clear a demonstration as you can find of the difference between the BSD license and the GPL, but other than that, which wasn't explicitly in there, there really isn't anything to your post.
Is Theo justified in calling the people who used his code without giving anything back asshats? Absolutely.
Can he force them to? Absolutely not.
That's the license he chose and he's well aware of the ramifications.
The thing to me that most sucks was that Stallman and the BSD folks basically made a bet on human nature.
The optomists are losing badly.
Re:BSD vs GPL is not relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless they are academics and thereby have their open source development efforts subsidized they have to generate some sort of income to keep their pet projects going and avoid having to get "real" jobs.
"A BSD based project is more likely to get inside a corporation and possibly more likely to create consulting work."
Which is a good thing if you are planning to make people appropriate, modify and sell your code while not letting you look at it ever again, in hopes that somehow your celebrity status will make some of them hire you.
Not celebrity status, expertise with the code. It takes time for a 3rd party to learn and become proficient with someone else's code. The most cost effective way of getting the changes you want may easily be to hire the original author.
Which, in most cases, as Theo is finding the hard way, is the only type of return expected from commercial involvment in your project. Hoping to get hired by someone using your code is wishful thinking in vast majority of cases. GPL folks understand that, and operate accordingly.
In part that is another fallacy. Most work on GPL'd code is never seen by the original authors or the community. Most software is internal, it is not distributed outside the company, and the GPL does *not* require the changes to be returned to the community unless thers is public distribution. Technically you only have to share the changes with those you distribute executables to, so two companies could share work and keep the community in the dark. FWIW, the majority of software being for internal consumption is the real lock Microsoft has on the market.
Re:BSD vs GPL is not relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Vast majority of FOSS projects are either after-work hobby efforts or side-effects of some other paid work. It is a testimony to Theos' ego, for him to assume that he will be funded just because his project is sooooo much more important then all the others.
Not celebrity status, expertise with the code.
Proficency with code can be acquired, and most of the time other factors play the primary role, such as geographical locations, existing teams, well proven employees and managers, corporate politics and what not. Again, as Theo is finding the hard way.
It takes time for a 3rd party to learn and become proficient with someone else's code. The most cost effective way of getting the changes you want may easily be to hire the original author.
You could hire whole armies of programmers, have them dine at 5-star restaurants, be enterntained by live performances by the most expensive actors, while on one of their 20 scheduled breaks during the day, and still not arrive anywhere near the financial and psychological cost of having Theo "work" for you. People have jumped off tall buildings to escape far less aggravating situations, such as hammer-totting mafia debt collectors.
Seriously, you have a horrible propensity to massively oversimplify things. Vast majority of FOSS programmers never gets approached by commercial interests, even though they are using the projects extensively, as most companies would rather use an existing in-house development team or local, proven consultants. That is how businesses work.
It case of the project contributors seeking to be hired, their options are the same as those of any other software maker: self-promotion and salesmanship. Which requires inter-personal skills. Which Theo is utterly devoid of.
In part that is another fallacy.
You are fond of saying "fallacy", in an effort to pre-emptively discredit your opponent, and yet lack any ability to demonstrate any such "fallacies". Not a very respectable debating tactic.
Most work on GPL'd code is never seen by the original authors or the community. Most software is internal, it is not distributed outside the company, and the GPL does *not* require the changes to be returned to the community unless thers is public distribution.
In which GPL is indistinguishable from all the other licenses. And which internal work is again performed by internal, pre-existing teams, with an occasional posting on a project's mailing list being the only indication of any desire for external input. None of which of course alters my points in any way, as the resulting code cannot be sold to anyone, or distributed in any way externally, without running afoul of the GPL.
Technically you only have to share the changes with those you distribute executables to, so two companies could share work and keep the community in the dark.
Err, no. As soon as you begin any external "distibution", any old clown who gets the whiff of this can show up and demand both binaries and source. Such is the way of the GPL.
FWIW, the majority of software being for internal consumption is the real lock Microsoft has on the market.
Microsofts position has a myriad of reasons, and is another, wholly off-topic, conversation.
Re:BSD vs GPL is not relevant (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be you and your buddies coding, anyway.
If you want to earn money, buy a lottery ticket. You can earn money with open source, if you're the one in 1 million coders who's lucky.
Me, I don't mind if EvilCorp takes my stuff and tries to sell it with their added value to monkeys on Mars, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how this effects my life, or makes my code less free. BSD is for strong people who believe in themselves.
What gives the MIT/X/BSD licenses the edge for me is that there are no hippies or fanatics around (see: above) telling me what to think and do or otherwise trying to sell me their truth. Really. I find it particularly disturbing that according to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I must be a hippie for the good of mankind and sell T-shirts. This view is outdated, and was out of this world to start with. Although I agree I can think up an argument why humanity needs a free operating system, for 99,9% of the open source projects, humanity will fair just fine without it. Besides that, try to sell this hippie story to a victim of war, poverty or aids in Africa, just to alter that perspective. Last but not least, humanity got out of the situation where they sit around fires and slept in caves, by specializing and inventing money as a means of exchange. For Stallman, programmers need to step out of that. That's fine, but the rest of the world doesn't. My hairdresser doesn't have the same attitude, he wants my money.
Re:what a whiner (Score:3, Interesting)
it's just bad business. lately lots of companies got big on open source and seeing how SUN (and others) has openssh based products, it would be freakin common sense to give something back to the developers. "well shit, they threw all that code in the wild, we're using and profiting from it, why not drop them some dosh so we motivate them to keep up the good work, so we don't have to".
some recent examples:
HP donated a 20 node [freebsdfoundation.org] blade monster to the FreeBSD project last year in december "We at HP recognize the important role of FreeBSD in the Internet's global network infrastructure, and we are happy that the HP BladeSystem cluster can contribute to the on-going success of the FreeBSD Foundation"
i was listening to a LUGRADIO episode [lugradio.org] recently and there's this propylon [propylon.com] company which specializes in legal products, and they are the fourth largest contributor to OO.o -- nothing small either, they got like 60 devs on top of shit.
and i'm sure the list can go on and on. so before you blame big bad theo for expecting something back from the `freeloaders' why don't you look around at what other `big bad souless companies' are doing?
--EORant
It's hard for a company to support OpenBSD (Score:2, Interesting)
To donate to OpenBSD you write a check to Theo. There's no OpenBSD foundation, no non-profit, nothing. So I'm supposed to go to my boss, who has to explain it to his, who has to explain it to his, to get a check cut to some guy in Canada because he does good stuff? I might be able to get a CD on the corporate AmEx, but a donation of any real size? No way!
If Theo wants money, Theo needs to set up a non-profit, preferably US-based, get tax exempt status, and see what happens. It isn't nearly as hard, complicated, or expensive as he thinks.
Re:Pony up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
But to bring up the same points I posted about previously when Theo was trying to extort money by holding a gun to the head of the cute little OpenSSH puppy... I'm not treating him like an employee.
I don't use OpenBSD. I actually have used it in the past, and to be honest, I find the OS as a whole to be convoluted, illogical, and pretentious (and this from someone who doesn't mind Solaris). So, I don't give a rat's ass about OpenBSD. What I am sick of is people saying "But but but but OpenBSD contributed OpenSSH, which you use", and trying to guilt trip me into giving money based on that. Eat me. Someone would have written an open source SSH server eventually anyway, and OpenSSH is built on code that's older than OpenBSD. I'm greatful for it's existance, but I'm not going to donate money to OpenBSD because they wrote OpenSSH.
It's my money; Theo released the code under the BSD license. I don't expect anything from Theo, I appreciate what he's done, but the guy is a cock. OpenSSH is just a tool to me, it's not a life changing expierence, and if RHEL or whatever shipped with a different SSH server, I wouldn't give a goddamn - I just expect it to work. It's a means to an end, not a religion. And I'm not treating him like an employee. I don't appreciate a guilt trip is all.
If I walked into JC Penny's and went to use the restroom, I wouldn't be very receptive to some manager dude standing right outside the stall, telling me how he PERSONALLY designed and built the restroom, and the store lets me use it for free, and how everyone who takes a shit on his property is a "thankless dog", and how I don't have to donate, but that I should. Fuck him.
~Will
Re:It's hard for a company to support OpenBSD (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Folks are completly missing the point... (Score:3, Interesting)
But as far as buzzword jumping - Sun has given a lot of things to open source, more than IBM in fact. NFS was developed by Sun, was always free as far as i know. Bill Joy, one of the Sun founders, was heavy into adding things to BSD (the original, from UC Berkeley) which were released for free. They jsut released their entire OS. They gave away ZFS and dtrace recently. They aren't on it because it's the latest buzzword. They've been doing it for years.