OpenBSD Journal

OpenBSD used in MS Services for Unix 3.0

Contributed by Dengue on from the I-thought-it-was-stfu... dept.

Richard R Charron writes:
"I installed MS Services for UNIX 3.0 at a client's site, fired up a C Shell, did a "strings * | grep -i bsd" and what do you know... OpenBSD!"

Script started on Sat Sep 13 01:12:33 2003
Script flushing every 30 seconds
$ uname -a Interix burnt 3.0 SP-7.0.1701.1 x86 Pentium II/Celeron/Xeon (rev0x0501)
$ pwd /bin
$ strings * | grep -i bsd $OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strcpy.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:14 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strncpy.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:22 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strncmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:21 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strlcpy.c,v 1.4 1999/05/01 18:56:41 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: memchr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:04 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: memset.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:07 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: at.c,v 1.20 2001/01/17 19:29:06 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: panic.c,v 1.5 2000/11/17 18:40:50 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: parsetime.c,v 1.9 2000/01/05 08:06:25 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: perm.c,v 1.1 1997/03/01 23:40:12 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: fts.c,v 1.15 1998/03/19 00:30:01 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: strstr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:27 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: syslog.c,v 1.9 2000/01/02 23:35:58 hugh Exp $
$OpenBSD: du.c,v 1.4 1997/01/15 23:42:25 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: strcat.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:10 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: expand.c,v 1.3 1998/01/22 17:41:09 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: find.c,v 1.5 1997/06/30 23:54:07 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: function.c,v 1.10 1997/09/01 02:44:19 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: ls.c,v 1.4 1997/06/30 23:47:44 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: misc.c,v 1.4 1997/06/30 23:54:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: operator.c,v 1.2 1996/06/26 05:33:12 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: option.c,v 1.6 1996/12/23 04:58:11 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: vis.c,v 1.6 2000/11/21 00:47:28 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: names.c,v 1.13 2001/01/16 05:36:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: getname.c,v 1.4 1997/07/14 00:24:27 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: fio.c,v 1.18 2001/01/16 05:36:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: aux.c,v 1.16 2001/01/16 05:36:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: list.c,v 1.10 2001/01/16 05:36:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: head.c,v 1.6 2001/01/19 04:11:28 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: lex.c,v 1.23 2001/06/23 23:04:23 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: cu.c,v 1.4 1997/09/01 23:24:24 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: hunt.c,v 1.6 1997/09/01 23:24:24 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: log.c,v 1.3 1997/09/01 23:24:25 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: partab.c,v 1.3 1997/04/02 01:47:02 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: remote.c,v 1.7 1997/09/07 12:23:59 provos Exp $
$OpenBSD: tip.c,v 1.8 1997/09/01 23:24:26 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: tipout.c,v 1.6 1997/09/01 23:24:27 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: uucplock.c,v 1.5 1997/09/01 23:24:27 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: value.c,v 1.5 1997/09/01 23:24:28 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: vars.c,v 1.2 1996/06/26 05:40:50 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: biz22.c,v 1.4 1997/04/02 01:47:05 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: courier.c,v 1.6 1997/09/01 23:24:28 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: df.c,v 1.3 1996/06/26 05:40:52 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: dn11.c,v 1.3 1996/06/26 05:40:53 deraadt Exp $
$OpenBSD: hayes.c,v 1.6 1997/04/02 01:47:06 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: t3000.c,v 1.5 1997/04/02 01:47:07 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: v3451.c,v 1.4 1997/04/02 01:47:07 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: v831.c,v 1.4 1997/04/02 01:47:08 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: ventel.c,v 1.5 1997/04/02 01:47:08 millert Exp $
...lots more output...
$ exit
Script done on Sat Sep 13 01:13:00 2003

It looks to me like the Interix team pulled from the 3.0 release tree. For the official party line on sfu, see: Among other things, Services for Unix provides all of those nifty userland UNIX utilities on Windows(tm). You know, the same ones you can get for free with MinGW or Cygwin .

(Comments are closed)

  1. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Ok. Baby mulching I can deal with, but restribution by Microsoft? Don't let the Linux people know, or we'll never hear the end of it!

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Microsoft has been using BSD code forever, it's not a big surprise.

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      If you read the documentation on Microsoft's website, you'll find they also include gcc, g77, and other GNU licenced software as well.

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Which you'll also note they provide downloadable source code for (and the option to buy it on a CD). I see no similar service for the OpenBSD code, as if that would be a tremendous inconvenience for them. Obviously they aren't required to, but still...

        Its an interesting case study for open source licenses anyway. Here Microsoft has created a (presumably) marketable product made up largely of both BSD and GPL licensed software. So much for all their "GPL is bad" rhetoric, I guess.

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          It doesn't surprise me that they would use GPL'd code when push comes to shove (Stallman didn't add an 'except Microsoft' clause to the license, so why wouldn't they take quiet advantage of the code?). They are pretty low-key about it's use. However, I couldn't find any kind of credit or reference to OpenBSD at all. This is suspiciously low even for Microsoft considering how much code is used (and that the source would only gain them credibility) -- perhaps I just overlooked the credit??).

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            I was thinking the same thing too.

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      The fact the Microsoft/Interex felt it was
      okay to use this code is an affirmation that
      the BSD license as serving its intended purpose,
      to promote the use and adoption of BSD licensed
      code. It is also an affirmation of the quality
      of the code if a company is willing statke it's
      repution on it. I see all of this as good thing.

  2. By Sacha () on

    The BSD license allows this AFAIK.

    And it isn't the first time M.S. used BSD code.
    Ever done strings on ftp.exe of a random Windows 2000 install?

    Indeed, don't tell the linux community this.

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      There is a *ton* of GNU and BSD code in Win2k...

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      and where is the code of those modifications to the GPL code?

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Indeed, don't tell the linux community this.

      Yeah, isn't it wonderful? Microsoft is taking BSD code and using it to try to extend their monopoly.

      Gee, I wish they would have done it with GNU code from Linux, but they can't because the mean old GPL license won't let you. Oh the horror of the GPL and stuff. Boo hoo, Linux programmers aren't giving away their code to Microsoft to have MS try to turn around and kill their creation. Oh the humanity! Oh the horror, etc.

      We Linux people sure are jealous of you BSD guys.

  3. By Anonymous Coward () on

    This is the main thing I hate about BSD - the license that lets everyone exploit it. And this is the only reason why I dislike BSD. It's good. PF is great. OpenBSD is very clean. It's very stable and very secure. But the license... Bah! This is why I support Linux instead.

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Personally, I don't dislike either license model(s). I believe in freedom of choice and without the other, there's less choice. Both have their pros and cons and each one compliments the other.

      Just my $0.02.

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      > This is the main thing I hate about BSD - the license that lets everyone exploit it.

      ...and that is why we don't like ignorant Linux users - they just don't get the whole freaking point behind the BSD license...

      1. By Semi-ignorant BSD user () on

        In your words, please explain the "whole freaking point" behind the BSD license.

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on


          1. By semi-ignorant BSD user () on

            Would that be free as in "free to use BSD licensed code, and free to not give anything back to the community".

            Please clarify, as I am a only a Semi-ignorant BSD user.

            1. By Nate () on

              Free as in FREE, as in not 'held to out defintion of freedom'. Their GPL is communist, I don't say this in a bad way (I would like to see communism tried some day), but I do say this as a point against it being "free".

              The very idea of calling the GPL free is a travisty, it is not free, it is restriction.

              Forcing someone that uses GPLed code to release their own code under the GPL is not free, that is as so many have said, viral.

              If I start out with a 20 line programme someone else made and make a 200 line one out of it, one that is better for my uses, should I really be forced into giving the guy who did the original 20 lines my code?

              No, they're my 180 lines of code. Heck, what happens if with time I completely replace his 20 lines so none of his code remains. Is it still his right to take my code? Can I ever remove the GPL from what is now my code entirely?

              Because my code is still technically derived from his.

              1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                I would like to see communism tried some day It has been. Ever heard of Karl Marx? Lenin? The Soviet Union? etc... Let's please try to keep the discussion semi-intelligent.

                1. By Nate () on

                  No, I said communism. Not The crap the Soviets tried.

                  That was a mix of dictatorship and communism.

                  True communism has never been done, because that would make everyone equals. Problem is, who would lead?

                  1. By couderc () on

                    Pirates communities where better communists than russians. Also Marx could have been suggested by an ex-pirate called Laffite while writing his manifest.

                    To come back to the original subject i don't understand why you're following the troll. This guy is a GNU fundamentalist so he will never try to understand the BSD philosophy. Stop feed the troll :)

                2. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  Have you ever read Karl Marx? He admits himself that true communism could only ever work if the whole world did it at once, otherwise the whole concept is doomed from the beginning. The sad attempts that have been made at it are all dictatorships. Soviet Union a true communism? Please take your own advice.

              2. By Anonymous Coward () on

                Actually, you are free not to give the code back with the GPL. You only have to distribute the code to anyone you give/sell/trade/barter the binaries to. You have zero obligations to contribute it back to anyone.

              3. By Iustin () on

                You are only forced to give your code away if you distribute it... If you are using it for yourself, you cand do ANYTHING with the code. But when you will be distributing it, it must be GPL. Only then.

              4. By Anonymous Coward () on

                You're not obliged to give your code back. If you keep GPL'd code just for your own use, you don't have to share it with anyone.

                You're just obliged to provide the source code if you sell it, and not allowed to make any restrictions on further redistribution or changing. That's right, you're allowed to sell GPL'd code. You're just not allowed to make it proprietary.

                You can link GPL'd libraries into your proprietary code. See

              5. By /dev/null () on

                Free. How you would like to make money from BSD? Like Apple did: just took BSD code and released Jaguar? Muhahahahahaha!!!! ROTFL!

              6. By Craig Buchek () on

                The difference between the GPL and BSD licenses is a matter of which provides more freedom: giving you the freedom to take someone else's freedom away from them, or restricting you from taking anyone's freedom away from them.

                The "viral" conotation is ridiculous. Try using some Microsoft (or any other proprietary) code and see if you can use it without your whole program becoming "tainted". If you don't want to abide by the GPL, then don't use any GPLed code in your program. If you don't want to get sued by Microsoft, don't use any of their code in your program. Duh!

                In your hypothetical, you are free to use your 180 lines of code wherever you want. It's yours, and nobody can take it away from you without your permission. (Many companies have released dual-licensed code, distributable under the GPL *or* a proprietary license.) It's the 20 lines of GPLed code that you must abide by the license that you obtained it by. Distributing your 200-line program requires that you have permission to distribute *all* the code. For your code, you've already got that; for the 20 lines, the only permission you have is what the GPL allows. As for if you replace his 20 lines, it's fuzzy whether that would be considered a derived work or not. Most likely you could negotiate with the original author to allow it. Or you could have someone who never saw the original 20 lines clean-room replace them.

                1. By Norbert Bollow () on htto://

                  For your code, you've already got that; for the 20 lines, the only permission you have is what the GPL allows. As for if you replace his 20 lines, it's fuzzy whether that would be considered a derived work or not. Most likely you could negotiate with the original author to allow it. Or you could have someone who never saw the original 20 lines clean-room replace them.

                  No, this isn't fuzzy at all. Read the GPL. Just re-write those 20 lines which are not yours, and you're free to so whatever you want with the resulting program. No clean-room techniques required, the GPL makes explicitly clear that having been together with GPL'd code does not affect your code in any way. The thing about the GPL being "viral" is mere FUD propaganda from Microsoft.

                  1. By Deven Corzine () on

                    No, this isn't fuzzy at all. Read the GPL. Just re-write those 20 lines which are not yours, and you're free to so whatever you want with the resulting program. No clean-room techniques required, the GPL makes explicitly clear that having been together with GPL'd code does not affect your code in any way. The thing about the GPL being "viral" is mere FUD propaganda from Microsoft.

                    The "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL doesn't apply to this situation. A CD with packages of GPL code and packages of unrelated code would be "mere aggregation". The GPL doesn't "infect" non-GPL packages just because they were distributed together. Not that Stallman wouldn't want to, but the GPL cannot do this. Copyright does not offer any foothold here, so the GPL doesn't even try to pretend it can apply.

                    However, the 180 lines of code in this example might be considered "derived" in the eyes of the FSF. As such, it might remain "tainted" even after the removal of the 20 lines of GPL code. (And clean-room reimplementation of those 20 lines wouldn't inherently negate this interpretation.)

                    Personally, I don't believe this interpretation of "derived works" should stand up in court, but I'm not a lawyer.

                    But don't misrepresent the scope of the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL. If this were an example of "mere aggregation", you would be able to distribute all 200 lines of code -- 20 under the GPL, 180 under a proprietary license. That's obviously not allowed, so don't use that clause to justify your interpretation of the GPL. Others might interpret it very differently.

                2. By random GNU/Linux user () on

                  The GNU philosophy goes on and on about specific freedoms and defines it's tint of freedom to allow copyleft. BSD is also a slightly tinted freedom. IMHO we should call them gnufree and bsdfree to end ambiguity, and get on to more interesting flame wars.

                  This post is public domain. Have fun.

              7. By Anonymous Coward () on

                You are FREE to not start with his code in the first place if you don't like it's stipulations. I'd like to see you use no gpl software on your obsd system. I know linux needs some bsd stuff as well, I'm not pretending it doesn't. I think it's immature for a linux user to jab the bsd community about this incident. But if it affects you, then maybe they have a point. IMHO the BSD liscence allows the selfish to take advantage of it's generosity, mostly because BSD contributers don't care if someone is selfish. With the GPL it's more a matter of them(gpl contributers) wanting to build a free amusement park, and if people go in and copy thier stuff for commercial amusement parks instead of contributing to the greatness of the original it pisses them off, so they make it so that doesn't happen. Bleh.

            2. By tedu () on

              free as in free. free. free. not kinda free if you include my silly rant in your source code. just free.

              1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                would the mandatory copyright notice count as your silly rant? i thought so... in other words, free is what is in the public domain, not your BSD or whatever license.

                1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  Public domain isn't free. Anarchy is free.

                  1. By cyberphunk () on

                    how come public domain isnt free?

            3. By Anonymous Coward () on

              Would that be free as in "free to use BSD licensed code, and free to not give anything back to the community".

              BSD: Freedom to give back and freedom to not give back.

              GPL: Must give back.

              Freedom does not include words like "must".

              Tell me, is the BSD community hurting as compared with the GPL community? They (BSD) seem pretty happy to me and after trying out multitudes of Linux distros over a period of about 6 years, I find OpenBSD to be the OS I most like to deploy.

              OpenBSD seems terribly high quality for an OS with such an exploitative licence. ; ) Realise that the BSD developers are happy to develop under the BSD licence. They do have the freedom to move over to Linux! Same as you have the freedom to stick with Linux.

              Coming to a BSD forum and stating that the reason you don't like BSD is due to the major political stance of the community (as if you could change everyones mind), is a complete waste of time.

              1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                ...if you don't redistribute it.

                GPL just comes from people getting pissed off at greedy corporations taking from the community with one hand and punishing it with the other.

                SCO uses Samba and other OSS components in OpenServer but demands money from Linux users.

                You know, if Linux goes down due to SCO, BSD won't be far behind.

                1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  Wrong. You don't have to give back GPL'd s/w if you don't redistribute it.

                  Wrong nothing!

                  I don't disagree with that statement, but I do disagree that it is a valid arguement in this case.

                  We are after all, talking about companies who WILL RE-DISTRIBUTE open source code.

                  If a company takes GPL'ed code, modifies it and then never distributes the result, then this has nothing at all to do with the arguements in this thread!! Was it not OBVIOUS that we are talking about re-distribution of OSS?

                  I think they call that a "moot point".

                  You know, if Linux goes down due to SCO, BSD won't be far behind.

                  Provide some proof. They already tried and failed.

              2. By Anonymous Coward () on

                >GPL: Must give back. Freedom does not include words like "must".

                Freedom in GPL applies to the code, not the coder.

                1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  Freedom in GPL applies to the code, not the coder.

                  And GPL code writes itself.

              3. By Morosoph () on

                Law: Is restricted.
                BSD: Can restrict.
                GPL: Isn't restricted, transitively.

                I'm happy with both licenses; I'd generally prefer GPL or LGPL, but both are cool, and I has total respect for people who want to code using either. That is, until I've seen their code ;-)

                1. By Aapje () on

                  Law: Very restricted.
                  BSD: Almost no restrictions, but derivative works can be more restrictive.
                  GPL: Restrictive, derivative works can't be more or less restrictive.

                  Requiring the source code to be GPL'ed and the source to be published for derivitive works that are distributed is restrictive no matter how you look at it. You are free to like those restrictions, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

        2. By Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido () santana at on

          A friend of mine put it simple: Microsoft : We want to make all software ours
          GNU/Linux : We want to make all software free
          BSD : We want to make all software better

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            'Free' as in 'Freedom, not 'Free' as in 'gratis' or 'at no cost'. Says so right below the head of the gnu at


            So how is BSD-style licenses making all software better? There are only 79 mature BSD-style projects at Sourceforge of 3111, while there are 485 mature GPLed projects of 31502 and 95 mature GNU LGPL of 4712. Unfortunately, there is no category for commercial/none-commercial project. You can find the numbers for stable code yourself at; browse by license and filter by development status.

            Even MySQL AB and Trolltech get the meaning of 'free' wrong, and believe that the GNU licenses do not allow commercial activity. and are doing commercial free software with the GNU licenses.

        3. By RC () on

          No matter what you do with the code, you are not depriving anyone else of the same ability.

          RMS is to blame for the whole "gimme gimme" attitude that, if someone is using your 'free' code, you have somehow lost something.

          Funny that, the same people that think downloading music/movies/books isn't stealing, think using code without contributing back, IS stealing...

          While I'm on this rant, I would also like to point out that GPL'd software is doomed. OpenSSH is getting adopted like mad, but (encrypted) NFS alternatives (almost all are GPL'd) are being ignored, and dying.

      2. By Linonut () on n/a

        What is the point behind the BSD license?

        It's nice, but pirate-able.

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Please explain how a license (the GPL) that limits what you can do with software can be considered free?

      1. By Semi-ignorant BSD user () on

        >Please explain how a license (the GPL) that limits what you can do with software can be considered free?

        Nice try, but this is a classic "straw man" tactic. No one stated that the GPL was free. It's obvious that it is not completely free. However the conditions that it places on redistribution of source code are necessary in today's captilistic society.

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          No they're not.

          1. By Nate () on

            Hmmm, I don't recall pressing enter there.

        2. By Nate () on

          No they're not.

          OpenBSD seems to be doing just fine without forcing people into giving them code when they want it.

          And it was a nice try, one that proved it wasn't free.

          1. By Semi-ignorant BSD user () on

            Sure it's fine if you don't mind you're "free" work furthering the intrests and lining the pockets of monopolists.

            I've come to realize that the BSD license is perfect in theory, but falls short in practice.

            The GPL seems to be more in tune with the reality of situation.

            OpenBSD is a great OS, but that license has very real shortcomings.

            1. By Dameon () on

              If the BSD's continue their open standard based coding, then when other OS's use that code does this not promote Open Standards? Is this not benificial to everyone?

              1. By Less-ignorant , former BSD user () on

                Yes, it can be very benificial to those who turn the code into proprietary software. They then add on some proprietary "extensions" that you must use/buy in order to communicate with their software. Granted most of the time people will use the "free" version. However when a big monopoly comes along, a large number of people will use their version.

                Freedom is a wonderful thing. Freedom to exploit others is a horrible thing.

                1. By Nate () on

                  It's not exploitation though.

                  It's allowed, hell, it's encouraged.

                2. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  Freedom is a wonderful thing. Freedom to exploit others is a horrible thing.

                  You can't exploit someone by taking something from them that they are happily giving away to anyone and everyone for free.

                  Get a bloody clue will you?!

                3. By krh () on

                  You have a very strong "us vs. them" mentality. Your "us" is something called "the community", and it develops open source software. Your "them" is people who produce closed-source software, "monopolists" as you call them else where. You seem to see the "monopolists" trying to dominate "the community" while "the community" fights back by using the GPL to enfore open sources.

                  This is not how we BSD users see the world. I see people writing code. Some of it is high quality software that I like to use. Some of it is low quality software that I don't like to use. Some of that high quality software is available for free, and some of it is not. Some of that low quality software is free, and some of it is not. I use whatever makes me happiest, open source or not. People write whatever code makes them happiest (and paychecks do make people happy). Microsoft distributes whatever code makes them happiest (and for them that means profitable).

                  I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft is abusing open source software unless I accept that open source software should always remain open source. But that's the point of the GPL, not the BSD license. The point of the BSD license is that anyone can do anything they like so long as reasonable standards of ownership are maintained. That includes having Microsoft repackage OpenBSD. It is in fact a situation that I like--if Microsoft used more of OpenBSD, their software would run better, and that would make everyone happier all around. As it is I am content running OpenBSD and letting Microsoft use what they like. I do not see it as competition. After all, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what's copying?

            2. By MechaDragonX () on

              "Sure it's fine if you don't mind you're "free" work furthering the intrests and lining the pockets of monopolists."

              Red Hat

              Pick your poison.

              1. By less-ignorant Former BSD user () on

                Please refer to a dictionary before you make yourself look like a fool again.

                A monopolist by definition is a singular entity.
                One == mono.

                I can't speak for the rest of them, but RedHat has made some substantial contributions back to the community.

                Just a few examples:

                1. By Anonymous Coward () on

                  You did say "monopolistS". You should read your own post before checking a dictionary before...

                  Isn't the GPL monopolistic, yielding your rights to the GNU?

                  Example of a monopoly contributing back:

              2. By Anonymous Coward () on

                Couldn't agree more.

                RedHat, the Microsoft of Linux and they "hate" MS...

                1. By MechaDragonX () on

                  What I find particularly offensive about Red Hat is that though they may contribute to the "Open Source" community via GPLed software, they violate it and trample is just as often.


                  Case and point is how Red Hat plays up the "built around the open source GNU standard", while the entire gist of the content winds up being how thier proprietary front-end for GCC somehow is better because it is commercial and "tested". This is the same banter we have heard from MS for years. Notice too how the "open source" methodology of GNUPro bears a striking resemblance to the MS "shared source" intitiative.

                  My point is/was that any of these monopolists in waiting are fueling thier bottom lines with the toils of the Free and open source communities. How is MS using OpenBSD code in thier UNIX services any different from Red Hat using GCC in GNUPro? Is it soley the size and position of the company that makes the use of O/S software in a commercial product acceptable?

                  1. By C. Conrad Cady () on

                    GNUPro does not contain proprietary code.

                    GNUPro Toolkit, like all Red Hat software, is published under an open source license. The GNUPro toolkit is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL); Red Hat ensures that source code is included with GNUPro Toolkit.

                    Please gets your facts straight.

            3. By Anonymous Coward () on

              Its not falling short at all. Its doing *exactly* what it was intended to do. Just because someone else also benefits from your work, doesn't in any way harm you. Why is everyone such a greedy prick that they act like people are being "exploited" if they give something away? Not everyone is motivated by money.

            4. By Anthony () on

              OpenBSD does exactly what it's meant to do, very very well.

              If you're trying to use it for a purpose other than the one that's intended, then your problem is not with OpenBSD.

            5. By Anonymous Coward () on

              I've come to realize that the BSD license is perfect in theory, but falls short in practice.

              WHO'S THEORY!? Your's????

              The developers would argue that from their point of view, the BSD licence is perfect in theory and practice, for what they want.

              Not what you want.

              BSD developers couldn't give a crap what their code gets used for. Thus the licence. MS and Apple make really big bucks from BSD code that they didn't write? The BSD developers DON'T CARE! YOU CARE, it seems. So feel free to go haunt some Linux forum.

    4. By tedu () on

      maybe you can explain what exciting new features microsoft added to strcpy that should be given back to the community.

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        That's obvious, buffer overflows

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          And an argument to truncate any string greater than 8 characters down to six chars, a tilde, and an ordered number:

          Documents and Settings -> docume~1

    5. By Anonymous Coward () on

      DragonFly BSD's Matt Dillon once wrote this on slashdot:

      Re:Good luck to you Matt. (Score:4, Interesting)
      by m.dillon (147925) on Thursday July 17, @07:51AM (#6459866)
      You know, I hear this junk all the time and I can only conclude that the people who spout it off have no real understanding of what the BSD or GPL licenses actually are, let alone their respective effects on the environment around them. The hype has far outstripped the reality and the result are hoards of young programmers slapping the GPL on trivia and minutia that has no other effect then that of relegating their bits to the dustbin of history. And the really sad thing is that it can take years sometimes to realize you've screwed yourself when, say, ten years down the line you want to use work you did on a collaborative project for something that doesn't quite fit the license and find you can't because you have no idea who else to contact to unwind the GPL'd mess. Oops! I find the GPL useful only if I intend to potentially relicense to commercial entities under separate cover and that is pretty much it. The BSD does a better job, statistically, in polluting commercial source bases with open standards and always will. Even microsoft's attempts to proprietize BSD licensed code has resulted in a far greater adoption of open standards, such as with kerberos, then if they had written their own from scratch which would have been 100% proprietary instead of only 5% proprietary. TCP and DNS also come to mind. Those were big wins for our side folks, mostly looked over because you idiots focused in on what microsoft tried to do rather then the actual big picture effect of what they wound up doing.

      The problem with the GPL is that it doesn't trust its fate to human nature but instead tries to force an effect that tends to be against human nature. GPL is a license based on fear and uncertainty, at least from an idealogical standpoing. The BSD license recognizes human nature and works with it to far greater effect for the society as a whole. I prefer trust to fear. I'm just not the paranoid type and if one doesn't have commercial motives for using the GPL one really has to have a high level of paranoia to justify it. That is the reality of the GPL. I use it occassionally, but for commercial reasons only. Everything else I do under the BSD.


      1. By Good Grief () on

        Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after me. To clap your hands over your eyes and shout "lalala" does not cause malevolent people to vanish from the Earth. Take off your tie-dyed shirts and smell the reality.

        While malevolent people still exist, the GPL does a hell of a better job of fending them off then BSD. I like both licenses, and happily use both Slackware and OpenBSD in my professional life. But I can't -stand- BSD-licence zealots. You people are like lawyers without the education.

        1. By Tim Barber () on

          Did you even read the whole comment before you jumped to your keyboard?

          1. By Good Grief () on

            Yes. Did you?

    6. By mothman () on

      the BSD license is prefered by people who develop open source software because they want to, not because they are required to, and they want the same to apply to people who use their code.

      we don't mind people "exploiting" our work, since thats the main reason we wrote it, to be used.

      all we require is credit (did the OpenBSD project get that in this case?)

    7. By Peter Hessler () on

      That is the point of the BSD license. If I want my code to be used for *any purpose*, by *anyone*, then I put it out under the BSD license. If I want to restrict what they can do with it, but still pretend its free, then I'll use the GPL.

      1. By slartybartfast () on

        well, everybody is playing with the term "free", aren't we? sure, gpl "restricts" freedom by stating that whatever you do with the code, you should make it "free" again. I can't see any serious/real restriction on this: yes, one can't grab a linux kernel, pay a gadzillion developpers, develop a kernel 500% faster, more secure, more reliable and then sell it to the world for $10K/cpu. Is that bad?

        on the other hand, theoretically one could grab the entire openbsd system, develop the openbsd+++ system, which is 500% faster, blah, blah, blah, and sell it for $10K/server. In the latter case, what will be the future of openbsd? Will idealism be enough to save this great project? difficult to say...

        it is actually a good thing to SECURE the open-sourceness and freedom of a product by restricting everyone to reverse these terms.

        as far as i know, constitutions work this way: they guarantee peoples freedom first by stating "the constitution cannot be disabled". this is a good thing...

        have fun, everyone, and enjoy life!

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          If someone want's to employ a "gadzillion developpers" to take any *BSD and make if 500% faster then sell it to recoup their development costs, "More Power To Them!"

          The future of the *BSD they started with is unchanged. It still exists for another company to
          employ a "gadzillion developpers" to make it 600% faster and sell it for $5K/server. Pretty soon you have several very fast, very reliable systems to choose from at reasonable prices. Eventually, the base *BSD gets faster because somebody is going to get tired of merging the differences between their code and the base *BSD code and donate it back to the project.

          FreeBSD is getting quite a bit of code fixes from Apple. You probably didn't realize your senario was already a reality.

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            "Eventually, the base *BSD gets faster because somebody is going to get tired of merging the differences between their code and the base *BSD code and donate it back to the project."

            For the most part, I would disagree. Their profit is based upon the difference between their codebase and the original *BSD codebase. The larger (and more important / useful) the differences, the more they can charge, the more profit they make.

            The effort of "merging" seems inconsequential compared to the profit they make by increasing the differential between the codebases... though I am impressed that Apple is contributing anything back... perhaps they're hoping for more free *BSD code themselves (which, IMHO, is the way *BSD should ideally work).

        2. By Anthony () on

          "difficult to say..."

          Pretty easy to say actually, since exactly that happens on a regular basis, and has been since before the GPL and GNU existed.

          "it is actually a good thing to SECURE the open-sourceness and freedom of a product by restricting everyone to reverse these terms."

          The open sourceness is secure. You can take the code and sell it, but you can't take the original away. AT&T tried. It didn't work.

        3. By Anonymous Coward () on

          "one can't grab a linux kernel, pay a gadzillion developpers, develop a kernel 500% faster, more secure, more reliable and then sell it to the world for $10K/cpu"

          Actualy, they can. They just have to provide you with the source code once you have paid. This is pretty much exactly the way the Kompany ( does buisness, and it works very well for them.

        4. By Anonymous Coward () on

          Why are people under the mistaken opinion that you cannot sell GPL'd code? That is not what it is designed for. Personally, I prefer the BSD License because it is courts-tested simple license that allows anyone who finds my code useful to use it - a license that requires a glossary is over the top for me and strictly binds the end user is farely pointless. I do not like the viral effect of the GPL - as it is said on the NetBSD information page, I believe whoever uses my code has a right to choose how they use it.

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            The GPL doesn't really bind the end user. It only binds redistributors.

        5. By PCronin () n/a on n/a

          In either case of selling for $10k/server(cpu), the companies that use the "free" alternate (OBSD/Linux) will continue to do so for the same reasons they are not currently running MS Windows Server 2003. Cost.

          I tend to believe that an IT department is driven less by idealism than cost effectiveness and ease of administration.

          With Server 2003 for example, it is "recommended" by MS that you have a seperate server for every application(www, smtp, dns, smb), resulting in multiple licence sales. *I say this because I haven't actually installed 2003, but have seen the 2003 Web, 2003 File, 2003 AD, etc as seperate servers.*

          With OpenBSD/Linux, it is left to the IT departments themselves to decide if they want several older machines, a couple of good machines, or, in some cases, a single high end machine to run the network servers.

          Personally, a utopian envrionment would consist of all servers and workstations running a specialized in house version of either a BSD or a Linux distro, with only sshd running for admin. Servers all running hardened versions of the same, and only the needed services on them aswell.

          But unless I get a startup going, it ain't going to happen ;-)$

          "Of course, that's just my opnion, I could be wrong"

    8. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Yeah, that's the trouble with altruism. You can't whine like a baby when someone you dislike benefits from your work.

      1. By Good Grief () on

        So when you donate to UNICEF and a Rwandan warlord hijacks a shipment of UNICEF medical supplies, you're happy with that?

        If that's your definition of "altruism", KEEP IT.

        1. By Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido () santana at on

          BSD Code is supposed to be used by anyone; the medical supplies you talk about are not.

          The medical supplies can be stolen and misused; code cannot be stolen, because I'm giving it away to anyone , it cannot be misused because I'm giving it away to be used for any purpose .

          See my previous comment to get the point behind the BSD License

          1. By Good Grief () on

            So you want to dissect the analogy? Let's dissect it a bit more: coding BSD-licenced software isn't "altruism", it's coding. You're not Ghandi. Get over yourself.

            NB, I have the utmost respect for OSS coders and their contributions, whether they prefer the BSD or GPL (or another) licence. However, this respect absolutely does NOT extend to those who feel the need to pick hissy fits when anyone shows the slightest bit of amenability towards a licence they chose not to use.

            And for your BSD zealots in particular: if you're so righteous and generous, why aren't you releasing your code into the public domain?

            1. By Noryungi () n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m on mailto:n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m

              And for your BSD zealots in particular: if you're so righteous and generous, why aren't you releasing your code into the public domain?

              Well, since the requirements of the BSD code are pretty minimal (tell people the code came from us, don't blame us if it does not work, and don't use our name to advertise anything), I think we can consider, for all intents and purposes, that the BSD code is in the public domain.

              Think about it for just a second: as many others have pointed out, if I decide to create my own version of OpenBSD, all I have to do is give credit, where credit is due:

              "This product is based on OpenBSD x.y, Copyright (c) 1999-2003, the OpenBSD project".

              That's it. End of notice.

              This is as close to the public domain as you can get, while retaining a copyright notice. And this is why some people love BSD-licensed software and operating systems...

              1. By Good Grief () on

                Well taken -- but when I said "BSD zealots", I wasn't calling all BSD proponents zealots *L* You certainly don't come off as a zealot.

                PS, I hate GPL zealots every bit as much.

              2. By cyberphunk () on

                i thought freedom doesnt require one to do
                which one doesnt want to do. i thought the freedom of bsd was that the word "must" was taken out of the license. seems to me i was wrong. oh well, better luck next time.

    9. By Jordan () on

      i wonder how much code has been taken from BSD and put into linux, but because of the GPL can't be commited back into BSD code base. Shame on the GPL'ers for stealing BSD code and not giving back to the project! Shame on MicroSoft for doing the same thing!

    10. By Odi () on

      If anyone is willing to pay for code that he can get for free it's their fault. But still the BSD license should require an ackowledgement statement in the documentation or on the shrink wrap like the Apache License does.

  4. By Peter W () on

    Since Microsoft used this code from OpenBSD (and perhaps other operating systems?), do you feel that they should make some kind of donation to help out OpenBSD? When I read this I got to wondering. If I were to use code from another os would I donate or help out the developers some how? I feel that I would help out somehow if I were going to sell the product that was using some of the other os's code. What do you guys/girls think?

    ~ Peter

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      They have no obligation to donate at all -- such is the nature of BSD. Don't get me wrong, it would be very nice if they did choose to donate. I'm sure everyone would be pleasantly surprised (more like shocked actually), and it might even be good PR. But I can't see it happening. BSD is (technically at least) competition for Microsoft, and historically they seem to have been a bit overly competitive in this regard (99% does not seem to be enough in Microsoft's corporate culture).

    2. By Vincent FLEURANCEAU () on

      The best donation Microsoft could make would be a well designed and trully secure OS for their next release...

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      There is no requirement do donate anything. Read BSD-license which says that code can be used freely for any purpose without needs to reveal changes etc etc.

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        "Should" is not the same as "must".

    4. By Jordan () on

      i think any company which turns a profit on BSD licenced code should donate to the project from which the code was taken. I work for a software company which is not open source, mostly window code and related. I got hired as the unix guy. Personally i much prefer the BSD licence over the GPL because it allows me to integrate BSD code into our applications. I have yet to do anything which required me to add any code, but if i do so in the future i will be requiring my employer to donate to the project which the code was pulled from.

      i also did a project with some other company before which required me to make a small linux distribution for an embeded platform and integrate their non-GPLed linux server into it. That was a licence nightmare. Nor do i think the company ever released the code publically.

    5. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Yes, they should donate. No, they should not be compelled to donate.

      They should donate because it's the decent thing to do.

    6. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Do you count the *BSD port of the .NET architecture as "contributing"?

      1. By Jordan () on

        Yes, but it's self serving. Is it going to be OpenSource? i havn't really kept up with the delevopment. It would be great if it was only offered on *BSD and not linux though :P

    7. By h0m3r () on

      "Emmm it's not BSD, it's BSD code...
      It runs on the POSIX subsystem of 2000...

      Still, nice to see a forum full of idiots who have NO idea what Services for Unix is actually for..."

      1. By zam4ever () on

        I believe many ppl used the BSD code in their own OS, application and etc. Since BSD license is very "friendly", they just give a credit in their product, and some of them will donate something to community. This process normally done by the ppl who have BSD spirit and faith in BSD development =P.

        I believe if Microsoft willing to donate some amount of money from their profit to BSD community, the BSD will goes further and all the good things will rotate back to the community.



  5. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Since we are talking about GPL and BSD.

    How many companies actually use GPL source code and don't give out the source code or give credit where is it due? I know a few companies who are breaking the GPL lisence agreement.

    Also will the GPL lisence stand up in court? You don't have to agree to it or sign any papers to use it.

    BSD is less restrictive, If I want to released Captain Petey's firewall next using OpenBSD pf. I would not have show source code to anybody. An author has the right lisence his/her code any way he/she was to.

    I prefer BSD lisence but I don't have a problem with GPL lisence at. I think companies and people are going to abuse both lisences agreements.

    1. By Flash () on

      The fact is that, without a license, you don't have any right to use this software.

      For a GPL-licenced software, you have to agree for the licence to use (modify, etc) the software, otherwise you can't even use it ! (author rights :)

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        You also have to agree to the license in BSD licensed software, otherwise you are in breach of the license - it is pretty much the same effect. The only difference is that all the BSD license does is to effectively remove any liability from the author to the end-user (okay, the old 4 term version demanded advertisement as well); whereas the GPL creates a constitution for a small-nation state, defines quantum physics theories, and several other side effects that lead to users running out of paper if they want to read it away from a screen.

      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        The GPL only restricts redistribution. If you have no plans on redistributing a GPL'd piece of software, then you can do anything you want with it (use, modify, etc.).

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Companies violating the GPL? I beleive it -- my colleagues were indeed considering doing it.

      I am working for a company selling network appliances. Between implementing a standard protocol from scratch or developing our own (proprietary), the second option would definitely be cheaper.

      BSD-licenced code changes this. Unlike GPL'ed code, it can legally be used in commercial products like ours, thus making open standards very attractive.

      Compatibility ensues. Everybody wins IMHO.

    3. By Mike () on

      They do give access to all GPL code they used, you just have to pay $20 for it.

    4. By KenF () on

      Companies can use a modify GPL software internally without redistributing the code externally. This is part of the license as well if you read it.

      PLease see a great break down of GPL and what the real concepts are on I got it wrong did you?

  6. By Krunch () on

    The link to the Service For Unix product overview is broken. The actual link is

  7. By cycloon () on

    go and fire up a commandline on 2k or xp, type nslookup and on the nslookup-shell: help

    you'll find something like that: ...nslookup(1)...

    Manpage reference..?

  8. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Ah, but what company actually pulled this code together and offered it to Microsoft (for a fee)? Microsoft contacted a pretty well-known interoperability company and made a deal to bundle core parts of their interop suite as SFU.

    1. By dan () on

      no, they bought Interix outright.

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Only for part of the toolset. Some core tools are from another company.

  9. By Eric () on

    Ok, they've used some code.
    BSD license says:
    * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
    * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
    * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    * are met:
    * 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.
    * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
    * must display the following acknowledgement:
    * This product includes software developed by the University of
    * California, Berkeley and its contributors.
    * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
    * may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
    * without specific prior written permission.

    1: Microsoft don't ship source code.
    2: Microsoft says you don't have the right to practice reverse engineering on their products, so basically, you're not supposed to find that they used BSD/GNU code, and even if you do, you can't prove it without breaking their license.
    3: Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999.
    4: They don't use Berkeley name or anything else to advertise.

    I may have misunderstood some things but, I don't see what they could owe to the communities (BSD or GNU) from those points.

    Btw, I don't see how they could write any code wich wouldn't be inspired on Unix tools as sfu is aimed to provide connectivity to such hosts. Why re-invent the wheel, if you can get the plans. The tools are supposed to provide the unix functionnalities.

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Shouldn't the strings pull up the copyright clause too; unless that was removed?

      1. By vincent- () on

        the license clauses are in comments, which are stripped out before compilation by the c precompiler (cpp)


    2. By dengue () on

      The point is to show some of the other companies that are using OpenBSD code, not to point out some sort of imagined injustice. Nobody owes anybody anything, that's the BSD license. This is not a conspiracy by Microsoft or Interix.

    3. By MechaDragonX () on

      I don't think it's that they *owe* anyone for using it. It's just that MS and Gates have had a history of condemning O/S software as inferior and insecure. Yet, when it comes down to it, many of their compnents are built from/around O/S softwares like the BSD and GNU. Many people who are offended by MS's use of OpenBSD in Windows products are looking at that history of slander. So if anything is owed, it would be credit where credit is due, and not more rhetoric about how exclusively proprietary wares are "better".

  10. By Pasha Kustov () on

    Maybe I won't be surprised if someday It it's clear that Window$ are built on a cluster of OpenMosix with cross-compiling gcc ;)

  11. By Michael van der Westhuizen () on

    they're allowed to do what they did.
    that's the license.
    get over it.

  12. By Whoami () who am i at caveland dot net on mailto:who am i at caveland dot net

    That the SFU code is considerably more secure than, oh, say the RPC code....

  13. By Anonymous Coward () on

    It also provides a NFS server for Windows and a NIS to Active Directory gateway.

  14. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Mom, you know what Mom, Bill took my source code Mom, and now he is playing with it Mom, and he won't give it back to me Mom, and I don't have another one Mom, and I can see he is breaking it Mom. Mom, please stop him Mom! I NEEEEEEEED my source code Mom! No Mom, I don't want to play with my own stupid copy of the source Mom, I want the original source that Bill took. Mom! Make him give it back, Mom! [whine, whine, whine]

    1. By cyberphunk () on

      mom he didnt give me credit, mom mom MOM, he is using my code and he isnt telling everyone i made it. MOM are you listening.
      my code is better than his, mom mom, and he took it, and mom are you listening, mom and he didnt say i made it.

  15. By Getaklue () on

    The BSD community is akin to a charity. The only difference is that rich pricks are pulling up in trucks to plunder your donations. Generally they're the same folks that lobby/sue against your organizations and projects.


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]