| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
No Subject Given
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:35PM
|
Let the flamewars begin...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:41PM
|
There needs to be more incentive to produce Free Software (NOT open source). This is definately one way..
Now those who don't believe in creating Free software... that's a differant thing.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:46PM
|
There needs to be more incentive to produce Free Software (NOT open source). This is definately one way.. Now those who don't believe in creating Free software... that's a differant thing. You mean, like, people who want to make a living programming software? Microsmurf
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:51PM
|
No I mean between people who want to program in a manner that allows the programmer to help another programmer.
And a developement process that puts the reward on the largest part of the developement life cycle:
Maintainance.
(now, if I could only learn to spell... sigh)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:55PM
|
No I mean between people who want to program in a manner that allows the programmer to help another programmer.
And a developement process that puts the reward on the largest part of the development life cycle:
Maintenance.
(now, if I could only learn to spell... sigh)
Okay... so, you've just instantly removed any incentive for Programmers to produce bug-free software other than their own self image. Well done!
Sorry, but the day I become a glorified terminal operator is the day that I give up coding. If I'm going to have to fix other peoples' programs to survive, I'm going to go and do something else more profitable/enjoyable. Because at that point, programming won't be enjoyable any more.
Microsmurf
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think he's right. (Score:1)
by linuxci (linux@cableinet.co.uk) on Monday February 01, @06:06PM
(User Info) http://www.linuks.ukpost.com/
|
> Okay... so, you've just instantly removed any incentive for Programmers to produce bug-free software other than their own self image. Well done!
If what you're saying is correct I must have missed out on the announcement that Microsoft was really open source.
I don't think the proprietry model produces bug free software - without the massive peer review that open source gets it takes a longer time to fix the bugs.
--
LinUKs - RC5 for UK Linux users |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:16PM
|
> Okay... so, you've just instantly removed any incentive for Programmers to produce bug-free software other than their own self image. Well done! If what you're saying is correct I must have missed out on the announcement that Microsoft was really open source. I don't think the proprietry model produces bug free software - without the massive peer review that open source gets it takes a longer time to fix the bugs. I didn't claim that the proprietary model (even though it has internal peer review) is any better than the open source model for producing bug free software. What I said was that once you shift the emphasis from initial development to code maintenance, you effectively state that "you will earn more money if you write code that is flawed some way so that you are then paid to fix it". This is what is wrong with shifting the funds to the maintenance side. Also, synthesis is much more difficult than modifying existing code. So why put the people who do the synthesis at a disadvantage. Remember: When all the artists and artisans go away, you've lost any possibility of beauty or innovation. All you can do is look in the history books, or the galleries, or listen to old CDs and remember the times when things of beauty came into being regularly and with a fire and passion. Am I the only one who objects to the GPL/ R. S. being aimed at reducing salaries for developers? Before anyone answers: when you do answer, identify what you do for a living. I'll start the ball rolling I object to it, for the grounds stated above. Microsmurf - Developer, Visual Studio team, Microsoft Microsmurf (Not officially speaking for Microsoft - I'm controlled by small blue space aliens that live under my desk)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
The bugs benefit nobody. (Score:1)
by cduffy (cduffy at bigfoot dot com) on Monday February 01, @06:43PM
(User Info) |
As a poor-starving-student, I do a variety of work; Most of my paying software jobs involve fixing stuff coded by other people, which is far easier if I have the source (otherwise, rather than fixes, I have to provide hacks).
I'd argue the following:
It's often not the original author who gets work extending or fixing a piece of software; Rather, the author is more likely to benefit from the resume-enhancing effects of their position. Take Linus, for instance, who certainly owes his job at Transmeta (doing non-Linux-related stuff) to his authorship of the kernel while other folks (me, doing server administration; Red Hat, selling boxed copies with support) make money more directly.
The author, then, benefits from making the best software possible. The bugs? They benefit nobody. My programming and server-administration work is certainly easier without 'em. Would I be paid any less if pgcc didn't occasionally segfault on my code? Heck, no. And any time I may spend fixing compilation problems with Mozilla is time I'm not spending adding features I've been offered money for.
All the software I've written from scratch, however, hasn't been for cash (well, not in a while). Rather, it's stuff I enjoy -- like making a prettier graphical interface for SPIM, the MIPS simulator I use. Am I coding less? Heck, no. And I certainly enjoy it more.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think RMS is right, and Microsmurf is scared. (Score:1)
by Tripp Lilley on Monday February 01, @06:56PM
(User Info) |
So, what do I do? Surprise, I'm a software developer! Guess what? I get paid to write OSS! I get paid to scratch other people's itches, because they don't have the talent in house, or that talent is busy doing other things.
I hear a lot about "shifting to maintenance". Well, yes, that's one way in which one can profit from OSS. But there are other ways. I agree with you on one point -- I think developers should write the best software they possibly can, and not wait around trying to make money on bugfixes.
Of course, it's ironic that you, a Microsoft developer, have that perspective. Not because I believe that you as an individual don't act on it -- I don't know you well enough to say that. I also know some Microsoft developers whom I believe are formidable programmers. It's not your developers that I think spoil the brew. It's your culture, your environment, and the motives and priorities that the combination of those two press upon you.
But let's get back to how "we don't have to starve" just because we give away our software. I have a simple motto: "My code is free, my time is not". What that means is that I'll solve any problem for you, but the solution goes into the pot with the rest of the GPLed work.
People don't pay me to fix bugs. They pay me to solve problems. They pay to be the first with the solution to that problem available to them. Most of the time, the practical reality is that those problems are themselves intricate and large. Does that mean that the software I write is intricate and large?
No. It means that I assemble as many existing tools as I can -- CPAN is one of my favorite places to hang out. And when the tools don't exist, I write them, and turn them back around to the community.
You said "synthesis is more difficult than modifying existing code. So why put the people who do the synthesis at a disadvantage?"
I say "you're right, synthesis is more difficult. You're wrong, we synthesists are not at a disadvantage".
I can understand how you would see things that way, though. You work in a culture that encourages you to believe that property is the only way to success. 'Owning' the code leads to "earn[ing] more money". First, I propose that you might examine your motives -- are you writing code to make money, or are you writing code to satisfy an internal need you have to write code?
If the former, perhaps you should ask yourself why you're earning money. If it's so that you can do something other than writing code, consider ways you might make /that/ into your life's work, instead of going through that level of indirection.
If the latter, then you should be well familiar with the notion of "enough" -- take a note from the old school "All I need is a ship and a star to steer her by". I write code. All I need is a machine and a problem to solve. And there are plenty of people out there who want their problems solved, are willing to pay for it (enough so that you can pay for living necessities /and/ coding necessities), and don't really /care/ what happens to the source when you're done!
If you clean a sidewalk for someone, have they somehow magically bought the rights to having a clean sidewalk?
"My code is free. My time is not".
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think RMS is right, and Microsmurf is scared. (Score:1)
by Dave W (Dave@nospam.sundayta.co.uk) on Monday February 01, @07:24PM
(User Info) |
Tripp,
Excellent comments. I agree.
Dave
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think RMS is right, and Microsmurf is scared.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:29PM
|
Quick response - I'm off home:
I can understand how you would see things that way, though. You work in a culture that encourages you to believe that property is the only way to success. 'Owning' the code leads to "earn[ing] more money". First, I propose that you might examine your motives -- are you writing code to make money, or are you writing code to satisfy an internal need you have to write code?
If the former, perhaps you should ask yourself why you're earning money. If it's so that you can do something other than writing code, consider ways you might make /that/ into your life's work, instead of going through that level of indirection.
I'm earning money to:
- Be able to take my girlfriend out to expensive restaurants and treat her like a princess
- Be able to support a family (at some point in the not too distant future.
- Be able to take my girlfriend off on expensive holidays
- Be able to maintain a comfortable standard of living
If you can come up with some way of turning the above into my "life's work", then I'd love to hear it!
If you clean a sidewalk for someone, have they somehow magically bought the rights to having a clean sidewalk?
If you're a Government/Local Council/State Council employee doing your job, yes.
Microsmurf
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think he's right.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:13PM
|
MicroSmurf.. if your developement methods produce such wonderful results, I ask you to explain why MS is lacking in documentation.
I develop in MS VC++, not by choice, and now that the demand is up I hope to move on to oss programming.
Examples of poor documentation:
Where in MS VC++ (refering to MFC doc)
does it explain that in order to unhighlight a item in a CTreeView, you SelectDropHilight using a NULL param?
Where does it truely explain the interfaces in a IShellFolder?
Why when you have a dialog that uses a CTreeCtrl does every button that could be signaled by hitting the return key have to check to make sure the CtreeCtrl is not trying to rename an entry?
How come a static splitter can't easily add or delete a pane?
What the heck is an IShellView, and wouldn't I sometimes want to call them to encapsulate a explorer view within an app. (as opposed to the doc that says that I would only need to impliment this)
(given, I'm at home now, so I might have my api's calls screwed up now, but this is the gist of things I run into.)
If this is what your $$ motivated software does, or if this is what I produce when I'm $$ motivated. I really can't see how the doc can get much worse if I'm only motivated by ego?
I'll list more inaccuracies and problems here if anyone requests.
Go ahead, prove me wrong, make a good VC++ it'll take alot of time..
Meanwhile, I'll opt for linux gtk+ and gcc.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think he's right. (Score:1)
by Dave W (Dave@nospam.sundayta.co.uk) on Monday February 01, @07:20PM
(User Info) |
OK I'll take that challenge.
I am not siding completely with RMS but I do take issue with your comments.
I am a Director of my own very small company (myself, wife, and 1 full time developer and 1 part time tester). We have two main products. Neither is currently open source (although the customers of one product all get the source code - and rights to develop it and sell it if we cease to do so). We are planning to release some of the tools we have developed as open source probably using LGPL or MPL.
One product is a fundraising system for Charities (our main customers are Bible Societies). The other is a document management system aimed mainly at construction drawings for buildings.
I take issue with the hidden assumption that Microsoft are not charging us for maintenance when it charges significant amounts of money for "upgrades" that do little more than make the machine run more slowly and fix a few bugs.
Also given the recent court cases regarding MS and "temporary workers" I would have thought that it is MS who are aiming to reduce the salaries of developers.
I have 2 other comments. Firstly, I do not accept that MS have innovated. Yes they have bought innovative companies but very little really innovative things have come from MS.
Secondly MS have definately got a reputation for UNreliable software (and this is entirely justified in my 13 year experience). Unreliably software means companies making money from maintenace and is not a thing of beauty (unless you particularly like blue).
So I assert that the business model used by MS has not kept the artists and artisans (except in marketing where MS are pre-eminent) and has not lead to innovation and beauty.
Equally I assert that the Free/Open Source movement HAS definately given us software of the highest reliability (even according to the Halloween documents).
Now for salaries. Our medium to long term strategy is to migrate a signifiant part of our income from sales / maintenance / support (actually mostly sales, we don't seem to get any support calls) to service based around open source. No we are not going to rush this but if we are not there in a few years I will be surprised. One purpose of this is not to reduce our salaries but gain a more even and consistent cash flow - always a goal for small companies and there are a lot more of us than there are of MS.
I also resent and always have resented that the only thing worth measuring is salaries / income. We aim to be a top quality company to work for. We aim to be a top quality company to buy from. BUT we know that these can only be achieved by NOT by focusing only on money. This does not mean we are poor payers but that we also consider working hours, conditions, happiness, fun, personal satisfaction, freedom etc etc
NB
Money does not make you happy AND lack of money does not make you unhappy.
This is a key life point that is obviously not understood by MS and similar companies.
Regards
Dave
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Please do not assume so much.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:23PM
|
Quick response for now - I'm off home for the night: Why do you assume that I'm saying that Microsoft innovates? Why do you assume that I'm saying that Microsoft does everything better? Why does everyone here seem to assume that I'm saying that Microsoft is the One True Way? Is everyone having difficulty reading past the "I work for Microsoft" part here, and rattling off on that, as an ad hominem/wrongfooted attack rather than based on fact? It's odd. "So I assert that the business model used by MS has not kept the artists and artisans (except in marketing where MS are pre-eminent) and has not lead to innovation and beauty." I don't particularly care. I wasn't talking about Microsoft. I was talking about the industry as a whole. I'm going to leave it there for now. More later. Please, people, re-read my post, and think a little more - I'm not talking about MS. I'm talking the entire computer industry here. MS is just one company of thousands. Microsmurf - not speaking for Microsoft
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
OSS works for me.
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @02:09AM
|
| OK, I'll put in my 2c. I write custom software. My clients hire me because I get jobs done faster and for less $$ than commercial vendors. I am well known for the quality of my work. I am able to do this because I use free software and OSS (I'll say OSS from here on to save typing. Sorry, pedants). I contribute back to OSS through my free libraries, and I make my clients pay for my OSS time. They know they are paying for OSS development, and still believe they are getting a good deal. I have a wife, son, house (in L.A., that's not cheap...), 2 cars, and 2 dogs. Last year I made about $120k, and my wife doesn't have to work. I work at home 80% of the time. I have lunch with my son almost every day. OSS works for me. Like anything else in life, it's not for everyone. If it does not work for you, then don't do it. If it stops working for me, I'll move on. None of this justifies trashing OSS or proclaiming it the ultimate utopian profession. -jh
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
My point of view
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @02:28AM
|
Funny, but for a while there I was misunderstanding you and thinking your message was a beautiful argument *for* OSS. Until I got to the GPL/RS line.
I tend to equate custom programming with innovation, not always maintenance. With all these years of programming, don't you think we should have finished the word processor by now? With OSS, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Once a problem is solved, you can move on to something else. And still have the freedom to create your own version of a word processor based on what already exists if you *really* want to.
Think of the possibilities!
I think the proprietary way of computing life is going to be a hard bad habit to break, but once it is broken, there will be nothing left to do but to make something new for a change. That should make things a lot more exciting than they are now.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think he's right. (Score:1)
by linuxci (linux@cableinet.co.uk) on Monday February 01, @05:59PM
(User Info) http://www.linuks.ukpost.com/
|
Free software != no money
There's many ways to make money out of free software (remember it's free as in freedom not free Newcastle Brown Ale(TM) - open source and free software are basically the same thing. Freeware, however, is not an appropriate term)
The reason many free software projects don't make any money is because the authors have written the project to satisfy a personal need and then released the source to help others.
Larger free software projects do make money:
1) You can sell it on CD's to make it easier than downloading (e.g. www.cheapbytes.com)
2) You can add extra services such as support for the product (e.g. www.redhat.com)
3) you can produce books documenting the software (e.g. www.oreilly.com)
4) You can over inflate the prices to make it attractive to the suits (e.g. www.caldera.com)
and don't forget companies that make money out of these products often pay the key developers (e.g. RedHat pay Alan Cox)
If you work for a company that uses open source. They can spend the money they used to use on NT licences and paying for someone to keep track on whether they had enough licences on paying programmers to customise the open source software they use. So for less than the cost of NT. They'd have a more relaible and customised solution.
--
LinUKs - RC5 for UK Linux users |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Fer crying out loud!!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:13PM
|
I'm tired of the "See Redhat's making money on GPL" argument. Listen man, here's a task for you....please quit your day job and create this wonderful package that detects and configures my printer correctly the first time. I want this to be as simple as XiG/Metrolink's graphics hardware detection. Just one click - detect and voila you have the right printer isntalled.
Now gpl the source and let me see you make any money to buy all the NewCastle Brown ales you can afford.
If a program is wonderfully simple to install, you don't make any money selling support because no one would need it. If you make your program as convoluted as possible, few people would use it.
Selling TShirts and Coffeemugs has nothing to do with computer programming....why don't you simply flip burgers instead?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh get out of here. (Score:1)
by Lalo Martins on Monday February 01, @06:59PM
(User Info) check.user.info.url.is.there
|
What are all these anti-Free-Software people doing in Slashdot? I thought this place was "our" reduct, where we read news that matter to us and can discuss among ourselves. It looks like this is not true anymore... so of course I must find some other place? Well, anyway I just decided to stop reading comments. This is getting stressing and almost nothing useful can be found anymore.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh get out of here. (Score:1)
by scrytch on Monday February 01, @07:13PM
(User Info) http://
|
Right. We geeks have only one opinion. One OS. One ideology. Unbellyfeel crimethink doubleplusungood.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh get out of here. (Score:1)
by Lupus Rufus on Monday February 01, @07:44PM
(User Info) http://
|
haha
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Oh get out of here. (Score:1)
by Lalo Martins on Tuesday February 02, @01:27AM
(User Info) check.user.info.url.is.there
|
No. But we Free-Software geeks are already a minority in geeksdom, and geeks are a minority in humankind. This was "our" place, and alas, it's not anymore, and Rob even gets flamed when he posts stories that interest us.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
You think he's right? (Score:1)
by Zagadka on Monday February 01, @08:43PM
(User Info) |
Notice that in all four cases, none of the income goes to the people who actually developed the software. I'm getting a bit tired of people saying you can make money on open source by selling penguin t-shirts or support.
I want to write code. I would like to make a living at it too. (I do, only not OSS) I would happily develop OSS for a living, except all of the models I've seen mentioned to make money off of open source are "unsavory".
I've read gnu.org and opensource.org's pages on the subject. From "http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html", there are 4 popular OSS business models:
1. Support Sellers - fine, except I don't want to provide support, I want to write code.
2. Loss Leader - assumes you have another product you're using to make money. What if I wanted to be 100% open source?
3. Widget Frosting - I have no widget to frost.
4. Accessorizing - I want to write code, not sell mouse pads and T-shirts.
I'm not against Free Software. I'm very much for it. I'd really like to know how someone could actually make a living writing open source software. I have yet to see a business model that's appealing to me though.
I don't want to be writing custom code, and I don't want to be selling support/t-shirts/widgets on the side to actually make money. So how can I write Free software, and still make a reasonable living?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
You think he's right? (Score:1)
by mill (millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se) on Monday February 01, @09:01PM
(User Info) http://pedgr571.sn.umu.se/~mill
|
Uh, you want to code but you don't want to write custom code? That is the whole point with copyleft. You don't get to claim ownership of something you have already sold and therefore you need to do write custom code (i.e. you are actually producing something each time you sell it).
Custom code is the most common form anyway. The shrink wrapped mass market applications will take the hit of an assumed Free software market.
/mill
Don't bother to reply if you can't put your name behind it. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
You think he's right? (Score:1)
by Zagadka on Monday February 01, @09:51PM
(User Info) |
Yes, lots of software is custom software, but virtually all custom software is hacked up crap. A customer makes a complaint, you stick on a band-aid. Eventually you've got a virtually impossible to maintain Rube Goldberg contraption.
Personally, I'd rather be writing well designed programs, than gluing together random software to perform tasks they weren't designed for. It's really sad if it's true that one can't make a profit developing open source software that a large number of people can use.
A lot of projects simply can't be developed properly by random people adding on little bits here and there. Complex programs require a large base designed by a small number of people (to make sure the design is consistent). If those people can't make money on the project, then they probably won't be able to devote all of their time to it. (Once a large project has an architecture in place, then it's possible for many others to fix bugs as well as add features, of course.)
Yes, there are many large free software projects out there, but I haven't heard of very many where the developers actually made money off of it. The majority of developers making money on open source seem to be those writing custom hacks. That's a real shame.
And it seems to me that those writing custom hacks for a living are only taking, not giving (aside from the occasional bugfix, of course). Sure, all of your custom hacks are open-source, but will they be of any use to others? No, they're custom, and will only work with a particular customer's setup.
I'd like to be writing applications and libraries that would be useful to many people. And I'd like to do it without starving. The only way I've found to do this is to write commercial code for a living, and free software in my spare time. I'm sure this is true for many others. Think of how much more free software there would be, if people could actually make money writing it...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
CALL FOR NEW PROJECT!!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:44PM
|
I'm the AC that posted "Fer crying out loud!!!".
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Here's a mission.....should you choose to accept it:
You set up shop with a group of GPL developers with a task of creating the best printing subsystem for Linux. It should have a one-button printer configuration and should be able to print anything that a Mac or Windows machine can print. The task is for this group to survive without any income from a DAY job...hell coding this printer subsystem should be the only thing you do between 8AM and 5PM.
Now I want you to provide "FREE TECHNICAL SUPPORT" for 30 days (after which you can charge me a million bucks per incident).
I also require that you pay rent or preferrably a mortgage, have a regular developer's bills - food, clothing, electricity and telephone.
OK, to begin with I will give you $1000.00 to start but after that all your income is from trying to "sell" your software (this doesn't include plush toys and custom development for
some joeblow). I want to see just selling code!
If you can convince some bozo to part with his money for something he can leech off your web all the power to you!.
Should you fail.....(ie if you have not made $1000 at end of 30 days)....you will be made to eat "crow" for 1 year.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Get paid to apply code, not to write it. (Score:1)
by daveking (daveking subverse com) on Monday February 01, @09:56PM
(User Info) http://3457402891
|
You say you want to write code for for money. That's fine, but not when there is high quality freely available code that already does what you need. Nobody would knowingly pay you more to write it yourself from scratch just because that's what you want to do.
If you are paid according to the volume of the problems you solve and you create or modify free software in the process, then you are being paid to write free software. The actual code is not the point.
As programmers we should be compensated for applying existing and original code to real problems, not for merely writing the code, and certainly not for allowing others to apply our code to their problems.
daveking subverse com --information wants to be false-- |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Why are you on crack?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:25PM
|
As programmers we should be compensated for applying existing and original code to real problems, not for merely writing the code,
uh, dood. like, dood, uh, man. I don't want to rush to judgement here, but do appear to be on crack.
Crack, crack, crackitty crack!
Welcome to Crackdot, where Crack is King!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
RMS is speaking of "advantages"...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:38PM
|
... as if this is some sort of contest -- "free software developers vs. commerical companies", round 3...
~kostik
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
It's between developement models.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:47PM
|
There really is competition going on between developement models not us vs. corporations.
Of course this response sounds like you are trying to compare RMS to socialism(not necessarily a bad thing... just never well implimented at a political level.. Families are socialist).
RMS is not necessarily socialisim.
And the comparison is not applicable.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
RMS is speaking of "advantages"...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:51PM
|
| Well, perhaps that's because it is a contest. Whenever my company (or any company) releases applications to the public, it needs to choose a distribution model. It can choose GPL, some other OSS method, "proprietary" methods, or any other scheme. That company can only choose one. Therefore the different software distribution/development models are in direct competition for the programmers at my company. It is a contest, and the folks in the Gates camp play hardball. We should too.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
RMS is speaking of "advantages"... (Score:1)
by Phil-14 (pgfatglobalreachdotnet) on Monday February 01, @07:33PM
(User Info) |
"It is a contest, and the folks in the Gates camp play hardball..."
Excuse me, but do you really think anyone developing commercial software for Linux is a minion of Bill Gates?
Maybe you think this will be good, but you'll only prolong the day that commercial apps for linux (which are important, believe it or not) are bloated pieces of flotsam that require Motif instead of gtk.
You can't force everyone writing commercial software to suddenly release it as free software. Maybe some of it, but a lot of development effort will simply dry up and blow away instead. Some may get released as open source, but a lot will stop existing. And I'm not sure that's good.
Stop and think about the nature of shared libraries on unix systems, and the fact that available commercial software is a virtue. Should it all be statically linked?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita pgfatglobalreachdotnet
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I absolutely agree - GNU readline *SUCKS*
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:06PM
|
Since when was GNU readline as asset!!!??
This is garbage pure and simple.
I can't erase GNU software fast enough if it contains this.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Smile! You're on crack!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:26PM
|
You don't even know what the fuck readline does, you wretched crackhead!
Crack, crack, crackitty crack!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Yeah. (Score:1)
by Radagast (joakim@styx.net) on Monday February 01, @05:38PM
(User Info) http://www.styx.net/
|
| RMS is, as always, right. Everybody has been accusing him of wanting to force people to release their software as free software, but this is the way it should be done, namely by offering people advantages if they release free software. He's also very right in that the correct time to increase that incentive is now. The momentum is great enough, everyone wants to be on the free software bandwagon. They should be convinced to fit into our mold, lest they mold us into theirs.
--Joakim Ziegler |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Momentum... (Score:1)
by Lars Clausen on Monday February 01, @06:01PM
(User Info) |
The momentum we have is that everyone wants to be on the Linux bandwagon. The big companies that have announced Linux-ports recently would most likely not have done that if they had to GPL their software. It would be good if they did, but IMO not realistic now.
-Lars
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sounds more like forced GPL to me...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:29PM
|
I'd hate to see things like GNOME or the GTK go GPL instead of LGPL. LGPL makes it possible for people to write commercial software for Linux, and frankly, I WANT to be able to go down to CompUSA and BUY commercial software for Linux.
RMS is shooting himself, and Linux in the foot on this one.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
He's not saying GNOME and GTK should be GPLed (Score:1)
by stevenj (stevenj@mit.edu) on Monday February 01, @06:53PM
(User Info) http://web.mit.edu/stevenj/mosaic/steven.html
|
| If you read what he wrote, you'll find that RMS is not advocating that a library like GNOME or GTK should be GPLed. He specifically states that the LGPL should be used e.g. "when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries." There are plenty of GUI libraries out there for proprietary developers to use (e.g. Win32), so GPLing GNOME/GTK would not give free software developers any advantage. He is just saying that you shouldn't automatically turn to the LGPL when you have a library, and should consider whether the GPL will give any advantages to free software.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Commercial != Proprietary (Score:1)
by Tripp Lilley on Monday February 01, @07:33PM
(User Info) |
What's wrong with going down to CompUSA and buying a nicely packaged, supported distribution of a GPL'ed package? I understand your desire to walk down the street and BUY something -- there's something compelling about a package, a book, a CD. It's nice to have tangible goods and a phone number to call when you're cranky about something.
But why does this have to be something you have only for proprietary, closed-source code? What's wrong with spending those dollars on a GPLed package? I bought a copy of the MICO CORBA orb for $30 from Micro Center. I regularly pick up the Red Hat distribution either directly from RH, or from my local Software, Etc.
In both cases, I get two satisfactions: tangible goods, and the smug satisfaction that comes from raising my two fingers to Redmond. Pluck yew!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Commercial != Proprietary
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:05PM
|
Buying Red Hat is one of the most idiotic things I can imagine. If it is for their 'support' system (and I use both the words support and system loosely) then you are getting sorely ripped off. Red Hat offers the worst technical support I've seen from any company in all my experience dealing with hardware and software.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Neah. (Score:1)
by glyph (glyph@nospam.helix.hampshire.edu) on Monday February 01, @07:39PM
(User Info) http://helix.hampshire.edu/
|
RMS, as always, is spewing propaganda where some common sense might be more appropriate.
He begins the article with a statement, that "proprietary developers have the advantage of money", implying that free software developers can't make money. If this is the case, free software is doomed to failure and obscurity forever. RMS's view that money is intrinsically evil and produces bad software is not only flawed, it's dangerous.
Software is great. I love it, and I write it and use it every day. However, if we take RMS's standpoint, software is an unimportant academic pursuit, not worth anyone's time or money. It should all be developed for free by volunteers.
I don't know about the rest of the /. readership, but I expect to spend a good deal of my life coding, because I love doing it. That means I've got to get paid for it. I'm not going to be a garbageman during the day so I can write GNU/Hurd software by lamplight on my 486 in the year 2008.
I believe we can all do very well from Free (as in free speech, not free beer) Software, if we charge for what actually costs money -- the programming, and not the code itself. How we do that and under what license should be a personal decision of the programmer, not a policy decision by whoever wrote the libraries that she wants to use.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Open software on who's terms?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:54PM
|
Open software on who's terms? Part of the price of openess is that you have to give up some control over what happens to your work. Openess is about guiding and providing examples, not about tempting the unholy into the church with trinkets and a free buggering by the priest...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Interesting Take (Score:1)
by S. Allen on Monday February 01, @05:38PM
(User Info) |
... I'm inclined to agree.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Umm.. Thats actually quite sensible
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:39PM
|
I have to admit the words "rms has posted an
announcement" frequently have me worried at what
he's done this time.
This seems quite sensible. The LGPL makes sense
for non libraries, the GPL for some libraries.
Lesser? I'd have picked Linking
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
LGPL for Libraries (Score:1)
by dvdeug (dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org) on Monday February 01, @05:39PM
(User Info) |
RMS would probably disagree with this assessment, but for my libraries I will probably use the LGPL.
Why? Because my libraries are primarily tools for programmers. I would like a programmer to be able to use my library no matter what he is working on.
One bad part about GPLing a library, is that the programmer working on a Artistic, MPL or NPL license can't use it, and a programmer working on a BSD-style license can't use it if they want the benefits of the BSD-style license.(BSD programers like the ability for companies to freely use the code.) This hurts other open source along with proprietary software, and I don't really care to hurt either.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
good point
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:48PM
|
yeah, GPL is not the only free software license
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
LGPL for Libraries - BINGO! (Score:1)
by William Tanksley (btanksley@DASH_YOUR_HOPES_hifn.com) on Monday February 01, @06:13PM
(User Info) http://lyric.ml.org/~wtanksle
|
You've said well what I feel -- I think that Open Source is just as important as Free Software, and just as moral.
It's great to talk about freedom, but the GPL goes out of its way to deny it. Frankly, I'm all for freedom -- but of PEOPLE, not source code.
All programmers should do the right thing and release their source code freely usable and unrestricted. None of them should be FORCED to do so, though, or they haven't acted morally; rather, they were coerced.
So although (I believe) RMS is right about this being a moral problem, I also believe he's dead wrong about the solution.
ESR's approach to the problem is right -- make people want to do the right thing because it benefits people (including themselves). Regardless of ESR himself :).
Nonetheless, RMS has a similar place of honor in my mind with Djastra(spelling?). Yup, I don't agree with either :-) -- software can't be "free" unless people are free, and software isn't error-free until it's been tested as such.
-Billy
"Knuth, on the other hand, is God." :)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
LGPL for Libraries - BINGO!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:12PM
|
"ESR's approach to the problem is right -- make people want to do the right thing because it
benefits people (including themselves)."
But isn't that excatly what RMS is proposing here?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
RMS vs ESR (Score:1)
by Geoff NoNick on Monday February 01, @08:01PM
(User Info) |
But isn't that excatly what RMS is proposing here?
No. While ESR is proposing that we make people want to do the right thing, RMS proposes that we use our force as programmers to make them do the right thing. If this is the approach we use people will go against us at every opportunity if we try to force them to do anything.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh, nonsense.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:21PM
|
RMS proposes that we use our force as programmers to make them do the right thing.
Oh, come on. RMS is saying that we shouldn't give away free stuff to proprietary vendors unless we ask for something (e.g. the source code) in return. This is precisely what the proprietary vendors themselves do, except they ask for money instead. If you want to use what I produce, you'll have to agree to use it on my terms. Suits understand this, because they make their livings doing precisely the same thing, but with a different medium of exchange. If my terms are to onerous to bother with, you're free to go elsewhere.
Furthermore, he's only talking about GPL'ing libraries whose functionality is not duplicated elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I've worked for a couple of different proprietary software companies doing development, and we *don't* buy any third party libraries unless they come with source. Why? Because the little bastards die off on you, and if you don't have the source you're handcuffed to a corpse. That precise thing actually happened where I used to work, with a windows GUI library called cpalette. The situation sucked. (Just between you and me, the library was absolutely godawful and I was glad to see the last of it :) So if it doesn't come with source, you find one that does. And if none do, you develop your own. We've done that. It's a pain in the ass, but we've done it.
Stallman only wants full GPL restrictions on libraries that provide functionality not available through proprietary code. In cases like that, the functionality will be duplicated by proprietary vendors if they really want it; they have money, guys. They do this stuff. Netscape in windows does not use MS's win32 tree control (e.g. for the bookmarks dialog); they use their own. Writing a tree control is a pain in the ass, but they did it. Don't ask me why, maybe they wanted it to be portable to win 3.1 etc. so they had to write one anyway.
You can't force anybody to use your code unless you're a monopoly, and monopolies on that level are impossible without patents, and RMS refuses to get mixed up in that stuff so chill.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
RMS vs ESR (Score:1)
by Kye (marcus@NOSPAM.yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) on Monday February 01, @09:00PM
(User Info) http://
|
But wasn't the point beign made that RMS' idea will force people to use GPL rather than a different Open Source licence? (BSD and so on)
If I use a different licence, and have free code, I can't use a GPLed library, even if no other library exists. It's forcing the use of GPL rather than another library.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
So?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:07PM
|
If I use a different licence, and have free code, I can't use a GPLed library,
True. So don't. It's RMS's code, he can do as he pleases with it.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:58PM
|
The library programmer is smart enough to read
the licenses and pick the most appropriate.
We need unrestrictive licenses such as LGPL, NOT MORE RESTRICTIVE!!!
RMS your are wrong.
GPL is bad license for most cases.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I disagree (Score:1)
by linuxci (linux@cableinet.co.uk) on Monday February 01, @05:41PM
(User Info) http://www.linuks.ukpost.com/
|
I believe that most free software libraries should be placed under the Library GPL this provides less restrictions. I don't mind if proprietry software is linked to open source libraries as it provides an incentive to develop on the open source platform.
I prefer using free/open source software but it there's a good proprietry product for Linux with no suitable open source equivalent I won't hesitate to use it.
Also more worrying is placing libraries under the GPL would cause problems with using the libraries in other open source licenced products (i.e. the ones NOT under the GPL but another incompatible OSS licence).
(Hope that made sense - I haven't had much sleep lately)
--
LinUKs - RC5 for UK Linux users |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
contradicts what?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:42PM
|
Justin, please provide any evidence that this statement contradicts an earlier one. To the best of my knowledge, this is exactly what RMS has always said about the LGPL.
A name change will probably clear up Justin's confusion--the LGPL was never "the GPL for libraries", it just happened to be more appropriate for _some_ libraries. It has always (in RMS's) view been a pragmatic compromise, and the new name will make this clear.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
#define RMS 'hypocrite'
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:44PM
|
Software should be free, for any use.. Isn't that what the FSF is all about: Free Software? Forcing someone to be free is like forcing them to be good.. The coercion negates the desired result..
Isn't 'becoming the enemy to defeat him' generally considered an immoral and bad thing?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Sounds like the Catholic definition of Free Will
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:55PM
|
You can do anything you want, as long as "we" approve of it. Richard Stallman is nothing more than the Pope of Open Source.
Much open source is written by professional programmers. Including me. If I use the GPL then I can't use my own library at work! That isn't helping ANYONE.
Stallman needs to read the Two Towers article.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Sounds like the Catholic definition of Free Will
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:01PM
|
>If I use the GPL then I can't use my own
>library at work!
As the holder of the copyright, you are permitted
to do whatever you want with your library. The
license software is placed under refers to an agreement
between the copyright holder and the users. It
can't hold you back.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Sounds like the Catholic definition of Free Will
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:05PM
|
yeah, but sticky little contractual bits often have stuff written for work actually become the property of the employer...
An interesting concept: a piece of software invalid as soon as it's written.. ;)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Only if you do the coding while paid. (Score:1)
by bkosse (bkosse@thecreek.com) on Monday February 01, @06:37PM
(User Info) http://www.rit.edu/~bmk7411
|
And then only if you agree to turning over the code. In the absence of an agreement to do so, you retain the rights to the work. Of course, to avoid confusion, simply specify ahead of time that the library is yours (and you have a substantial case if you do the majority of coding of it at home).
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
GPL / LGPL -- but what's aim? (Score:1)
by Zod on Monday February 01, @07:11PM
(User Info) |
It depends on whether your primary aim when writing free/open software is granting your users "freedom" or in harnassing a collective work.
If it is the latter then you run into problems if you do go the GPL route.
When people start submitting patches back, you either need to get them transfer copyright to you, or not use them in your proprietry work.
the LGPL can help the author in this way, as they can just require all patches to come under the LGPL too.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sounds like the Catholic definition of Free Will (Score:1)
by kfort (kirk@patrohn.com) on Monday February 01, @06:07PM
(User Info) http://
|
Change your ways and recant your words against the Church or you will feel Gods wrath on the day of Judgement.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
[Mini-religious-debate] (Score:1)
by cduffy (cduffy at bigfoot dot com) on Monday February 01, @06:54PM
(User Info) |
"Change your ways and recant your words against the Church"?
Funny, the New Testament of the bible I read says it's not actions but faith that results in redemption.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
[Slightly larger-religious-debate] (Score:1)
by Zod on Monday February 01, @07:13PM
(User Info) |
The New T. I read suggests faith is the result of redemption, and comes a a gift of God.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
He was thinking of Luther (Score:1)
by Geoff NoNick on Monday February 01, @08:12PM
(User Info) |
Yep - Luther's the one who says that it is not works but faith that will gain one admittance to the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, he also says that anyone sufficiently inspired with faith will perform good works but they come secondarily to the faith.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I don't buy it
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:25PM
|
I just don't buy this newfangled notion that works are irrelevant, faith alone, blah blah etc. I can't quote any verses on this, but it's abundantly clear from Christ's life as described in the Gospels that works matter very much. What you do is important, how you treat others is important, etc. Works without faith, of course, won't get you anywhere either. Gotta do both, baby. Gotta do both. The Jack Chick-ish notion that you can run around killing people for Jesus and go straight to heaven seems a bit self-serving, coming from a gang of "Christians" many of whom do just that.
(Of course I'm an atheist, but the God I don't believe in is the Catholic one, not Protestant, and sure-as-hell not Pentecostal :)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I buy it (Score:1)
by cduffy (cduffy at bigfoot dot com) on Monday February 01, @08:44PM
(User Info) |
Although I don't believe I'll go to Hell for my actions, I still try to avoid sin. The OT sowing-and-reaping thing certainly still applies; My actions will certainly come back to haunt me by messing up my current life (if not my afterlife).
Christ had to live his life perfectly by OT law to be able to clear our sins, allowing the New Testament. Not that living a Christ-like life isn't a Very Good Thing -- it certainly is. Neccesary, no -- and were it so, we'd be no better off than under OT.
Anyhow, faith is more than just saying "I believe...". True repentance is a state I expect many of the folks who commit murder with the intensions of getting off easy will have trouble achieving.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I don't buy it (Score:1)
by SalsaDoom on Monday February 01, @09:24PM
(User Info) http://
|
.... but doesn't doesnt mean i'm gonna be a prick just because i don't think this old book is any good.
bible=morality has been proven to be a false link long, long ago.
SalsaDoom.
"I don't know what life is, but nobody gets out alive" |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Cause/effect (Score:1)
by cduffy (cduffy at bigfoot dot com) on Monday February 01, @08:47PM
(User Info) |
My personal experience would be that God, via the gift of the Holy Spirit, inspires faith which leads to redemption.
If this gets too much larger, perhaps it should be transferred to a newsgroup somewhere...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
[Mini-religious-debate] (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Monday February 01, @10:48PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
Yes, but the Old Testament of the Bible commands actions, such as brutally stoning somebody to death, while implying that such actions are necessary in order to be deemed in compliance with the Holy Word. So therefore actions are required for redemption.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
[Mini-religious-debate] (Score:1)
by Zod on Monday February 01, @10:54PM
(User Info) |
Nope.
Although the old testament requires actions in order to remain obedient to the Word of God, no where does it equate obedience with redemption.
That has been the fatal flaw in many a doctrine.
Redemption by very definition is separate from obedience.
( This will be my last post on this topic since it is so far off topic )
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
[Mini-religious-debate] (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Monday February 01, @11:02PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
So one may disobey this God creature without losing all hope for salvation? What's the point of obeying him then?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Stoning need not be brutal!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @11:08PM
|
Yes, but the Old Testament of the Bible commands actions, such as brutally stoning somebody to death
I defy you to find a passage where they specify brutality in the stoning! As far as I can tell, you can stone people any way you like, as long as they end up dead under a pile of rocks. :)
Futhermore, and in a more serious vein, I'm a (lapsed) catholic so I really don't know how to approach this question; you're talking about the Old Testament, and we're not really into that. Jesus basically said to blow it off, and God gave the same advice to Luke in the beginning of Acts: "eat bugs, dude!" or words to that effect. i'd have to ask a jew to get more of a notion about this, but i'm not sure that the "redemption" thing as christians understand it is really even meaningful in that context. it's really a different religion. I mean, catholics just don't stone people, you know? it's more like forgiveness and absolution and all that.
certainly the OT is more into works than the NT, but the whole OT v. NT thing is a very, very gray area anyway. some parts get ditched (dietary laws), but some not; also christ was real negative about divorce (IIRC he specifically forbade it) but judaism allows divorce and always has (it's a major hassle, in israel anyway, but people do it). Basically, when you're starting a sect, the mix of Old and New Testament that you use is at your own discretion. If you're starting your sect in Alabama, you lean on Revelation from the New and get all the retribution, eye-for-an-eye madness and homophobia from the Old. It's a mix-and-match thing. Actually, it's a giant ink blot. Whatever your psychoses are, you can find an excuse in the Book. Just look it up and lay it down, lord have MERCY!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Freedom of Software v. Freedom of People (Score:1)
by Matthew Weigel on Monday February 01, @07:15PM
(User Info) http://
|
I disagree. The copyleft, is specifically designed to preserve the rights of the users of software. It is not designed to make it 'easy' for programmers.
The GPL requires that code linked against the licensed code, or derived from the licensed code, can not be kept fom users. The software isn't the issue; it is the users, and propagators, of said software, that have their freedom preserved.
The GNU Library/Lesser GPL is there only for the strategic reason of making a free operating system usable before every little free utility (well, the kernel is the sticky part ;) is finished.
I don't care how f**king free the software is, it's nice to be able to edit code.
--Matthew |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Your subject line does not serve you well
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:51PM
|
I have read the histories of many religious flamewars in the pages of slashdot. I find it ironic, then, that this superfluous attack on one of the world's most prolific religions should not yet evoke one flame. I will leave the question as to the causes of this for the reader to ponder.
That said, I'd like to point out a few reasons why I don't think Mr. Stallman qualifies as the Pope of Open Source:
1: too thin
2: hair too big
3: not enough funny hats
4: I just don't know if RMS has written any encyclicals addressed to "people of conscience,"
urging them to work to improve the social, economic, and physical condition of women throughout the world.
I mean no offense to Richard Stallman. He's one of the people I admire the most.
I urge you, Anonymous Coward, to stick to the point when you post in the future. Your message's baggage alienates many readers who would otherwise be open to your ideas.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
author of this comment: I screwed up.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:04PM
|
I wrote the above comment, but I forgot that I wasn't logged in. (and I don't remember my pwd, and I'm too lazy to go get it) My account is steelerm, and my name is Matt Steele.
And it looks like somebody got in a flame while I was writing my reply. I have to admit that I laughed when I read "Fuck you", but I guess the Pope wouldn't be proud. Shucks. But how could I laugh, when I'm a (far from perfect) Catholic? Oh, that's right, because I have free will, and sometimes I'm an asshole.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Your subject line does not serve you well (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Monday February 01, @10:49PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
4: I just don't know if RMS has written any encyclicals addressed to "people of conscience,"
urging them to work to improve the social, economic, and physical condition of women throughout the world.
RMS has been quite vocal in urging people to improve the social, economic, and physical condition of people throughout the world. Nothing specifically about women, AFAIK, however.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
About catholic
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:44PM
|
Interesting that the word "catholic" used as an adjective, actually means liberal !
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
About crackheads
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:36PM
|
Interesting that the word "catholic" used as an adjective, actually means liberal !
um, not exactly, doesn't it mean more like "all-inclusive"? (as in, "he has catholic tastes") which is exactly why that adjective was applied to the church in the first place; and it is still used explicitly as an adjective, as in "the holy roman catholic and apostolic church" or whatever; i may have gotten some of those out of order :)
fuck the catholic-bashing anyhow, if it's strange to you of COURSE you hate and fear it, but like, uh, grow up, okay? the pope's a prick these days, but the church is not a vast international conspiracy in league with the jewish bankers to impose One World Government on Pat Buchanan or whatever.
The church is a very old and complicated thing, which nowadays does some vile shit (e.g. the opposition to reproductive freedom) and in the past has done some much worse shit (e.g. the inquisition), but they have also done some good things, like for example a lot of catholic clergy have gotten killed in central america struggling for democracy. these have been serious, heavy people who did the right thing when it hurt. no simple judgements on the church can ever be reasonable or just. By the way, speaking of "liberal", they official church position on labor issues is pro-labor, and that's been going on for a while now.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
#undef PARSE_ERR (Score:1)
by tony@work (tonyt@ptialaska.net) on Monday February 01, @05:56PM
(User Info) http://
|
RMS is not forcing anyone to do anything. He is merely urging people to use the GPL instead of the LGPL for libraries. He has not said, "Do not use the LGPL at all."
Stallman may be quite a few things-- insane, zealous, perhaps even sociopathic-- but he is not a hypocrite. In fact, he is one of the few people in the world willing to stand up for his personal beliefs. In fact, he is willing to sacrifice great monetary reward for the ablility to sleep at night knowing he is true to his beliefs.
He is an admirable man simply for that, whether you agree with his beliefs and assumptions, or not.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
#define RMS 'hypocrite' (Score:1)
by dj.delorie (dj@delorie.com) on Monday February 01, @06:11PM
(User Info) http://www.delorie.com/
|
The FSF is not about the freedom of users to use software as they see fit. It's about the freedom of the software to be used as it sees fit. In the case of GNU software, the authors - who may choose any terms they wish - require that if you choose to use their software, you must obey their terms. If you don't like their terms, don't use their software. Nobody is saying that you must use their software.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
proper C/C++ syntax (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Monday February 01, @10:44PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
#define RMS 'hypocrite'
Why are you placing a string literal inside of single quotes? That's not going to work. Try #define RMS "hypocrite" and you'll be much better results.
Furthermore, I agree with RMS so there :P
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Bullshit
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:46PM
|
If it's part of your job to write proprietary software (I like eating!), then having LGPLed libs makes life much easier, and makes my boss a lot more condusive to using free software. And if free software is going to succeed, there needs to be a balance between free and proprietary software.
If there were no LGPL, I'd be coding under NT instead of Linux.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Bullshit
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:05PM
|
Bah, I could care less if the bottom feaders, profiting off our patches done for free, in the name of research an advancement did switch to NT. You can all go BSOD yourselfs to death for all I care :)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Bullshit
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:41PM
|
Oh, and what patches have you submitted? I'd be quite happy to avoid those programs.
I use open source software at work. If I find a problem, I'll file a bug report or patch... if the license doesn't allow me to use it, then I won't. Not all non-opensource programmers profit from patches for free... and changing the license to prevent us using open source software will only reduce the number of people working on it.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Userbase is everything... (Score:1)
by cduffy (cduffy at bigfoot dot com) on Monday February 01, @06:57PM
(User Info) |
...where the users are the developers. You think folks don't submit patches to software they get paid to use?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Bullshit
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:27PM
|
what about the people currently using Open Source software. and contributing, who would no longer be able to use it under the new regime?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Untrue!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:02PM
|
"If it's part of your job to write propritary software (I like eating!)."
Thats BS! You can make a living fine with free software.
If you are writing internal use software, then it doesn't matter if it's free or not. In which case, GPLed libs are very useful: They keep the pointyhairs from preventing you from distributing it.
If you are writing shrink wrapped commercial software, you are making your wallet fat by stealing freedom from the rest of us. How can you look yourself in the mirror in the morning?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Stealing freedom
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:19PM
|
stealing freedom from the rest of us. No one is stealing your freedom. You didn't have anything to steal.
They are releasing THIER WORK under THEIR TERMS.
If you don't like it then don't use it. There is no freedom to reap benefits from other peoples works.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Lier
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:37PM
|
If I buy a bar of soap from you I can carve it into a unicorn and sell it for $30.
If I buy propritary software from you it would be very hard to add value to it, and you'd sue my if I passed on my modified copy.
You have taken away my freedom, pure and simple.
And if you dont believe in out current copyright laws then:
You also take away my freedom to copy it. If I buy a chair from you, I can make a duplicate (as long as I dont violate any patents) and sell as many as I want.
In this way, you again take away my freedom.
Taking away people's freedom is wrong.
Contracts which restrict options are fine because they are negoiated and work two ways. Software is not like this.
Propritary software, as it is today is immoral.
Software can be commercial and be fine as long as the authors dont take away peoples freedom.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
LiAr
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:01PM
|
"Contracts which restrict options are fine because they are negoiated and work two ways. Software is not like this.
Propritary software, as it is today is immoral. "
ever hear of something called the EULA? If you do not like the terms of proprietary software (i.e. not being able to see the source, modify it, and redistribute it), then I have the right to not sell it to you. I must tell you I will not miss much sleep over it.
You have the freedom to avoid proprietary software and the restrictions that you will be under if you buy/use it. How is making proprietary software wrong? It is a contract which you are not forced into.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Copying (Score:1)
by Zod on Monday February 01, @08:49PM
(User Info) |
You also take away my freedom to copy it. If I buy a chair from you, I can make a duplicate (as long as I dont violate any patents) and sell as many as I want. The difference being that that is replication not duplication.
No one is stopping you from making a replication of my work (ok some companies try, but that really does suck) you can produce another work using mine as a example of what you want to create. I'm fine with that. That's free enterprise and competition.
BUT you cannot take the direct results of my work and use that outside of the License agreement. Software is in the rare position that duplication is possible. Whereas with your chair it is not possible.
When someone invents a matter duplicator, we'll see how things work with the chair. Buy a chair from your local furniture shop for $50. Make 50 duplicates costing you nothing, sell them for $5 each. Not a bad profit. THAT is the corresponding chair example.
It will be an interesting world when we get to that point.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Lier
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:52PM
|
| He hasn't stolen a thing. In fact, he's not taken a single thing that you haven't given him of your own free will.
It was you who approached him and offered thirty dollars for a copy of a software package. It was you who agreed to the license that said you would not copy it or create derivative works. It was you who put the chains on your own wrists and clamped the irons on your own legs.
And if you have a problem with that, it's you who should not buy what this person sells. If it's that goddamn immoral, don't spend your money to perpetuate it.
Those who disagree will continue to disagree, and that's moral too. Information wants to be useful, but information providers want to be fed. And like it or not, people who decide that there are other advantages to closed source software that outweigh not getting the source code will make sure their bellies stay nice and full.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Liar
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @12:51AM
|
No it wasn'y my fault. My state would imprison me because I couldn't read it's laes (written in word 97) and my boss would fire me if I couldnt turn in the expense report (w/ powerpoint).
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Bullshit, GPL blows.. LGPL kciks
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:50PM
|
GPL libs are crap idea, its like microsoft telling everyone that to use MFC42.dll or wininet.dll , you have to pay MS for the privelege. Get of you high horse... a lib is a lib so any app can use it , if you dont like it, dont release it as a lib.
Either way a wrapper lib layer around the GPL lib is 100% legal and gets around the problem , so there :P~~~~~~~~~~
-CB
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Great idea!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:48PM
|
Before anyone flames RMS for being a religious nut, keep in mind the alternative: A proprietary-"standards" nut.
Also, read www.az.com/~drysdam/GPL-as-strategy.html.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Great idea!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:44PM
|
>Also, read www.az.com/~drysdam/GPL-as-strategy.html.
This is good, except that two objections are not answered sufficiently or at all (read the article in the URL for these two to make sense):
1) commercial software is propped up with paid help
2) commercial software programmers can learn from GPL software and thereby improve their commercial software without necessarily incorporating GPL code
Still I agree with the general point that GPL has a lot going for it. But because of the above two points, it is debatable though whether the advantage is truly overwhelming, or just enough to keep GPL alive alongside a thriving commercial software industry.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
LSL killed the spirit of Copyleft
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:48PM
|
The "advantages" (if any) of GPL is not that it limits a work to only being used by free projects. The lack of enforcement of GPL/LGPL by both FSF and non-FSF authors shows a trend of GPL being more of a "guideline" than a license. Commerical software developers have the advantage of controlling the *REQUIREMENTS* of use where as GPL authors only provide *REQUESTS*. As Dan Irvin of Linux Systems Labs has stated and followed through on, LSL can get away with not distributing the source code or honoring the requirement of providing the source code for three years because it would cost more to sue for license infringment than would be awarded as damages.
The question that developers should ask isn't if they should publish under GPL or LGPL. For a developer to has the "advantage" of being able to controll distribution/use they should ask themselves if publishing under GPL or LGPL at all is a good idea. More developers should listen to the words of Dan Irvin and give up on the spirit of Copyleft complettely.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again) (Score:1)
by anomaly on Monday February 01, @05:50PM
(User Info) http://
|
It makes sense that RMS is pushing this idea. It's fully in keeping with his ideology that ALL software should be free.
Unfortunately for him, not everyone shares his point of view. I fully support the idea that free software tends to be good software. I don't think that free software should be the ONLY software. That's where RMS runs into trouble. His philosophical position places him in a mutual death-grip with BillG whose ideology says that all software should profit him personally.
The sad thing is that it means that they're both blinded to the reality that IS.
There will continue to be good free software, and there will continue to be good not-so-free software. (Although it's doubtful that we'll see any good software from Redmond.)
We can only hope that RMS and BillG will one day see that we live in a world that lies between their ideologies.....
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:58PM
|
There will continue to be good free software, and there will continue to be good not-so-free software. (Although it's doubtful that we'll see any good software from Redmond.)
Hey! I resent that remark!
Microsmurf (yes, I do work for the 'enemy')
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:57PM
|
Please don't take this personally, but maybe you should try producing some good software, then perhaps those comments will not pop up so often.
PS. Is there some reason that MS intentionally left out template partial specializion and template template parameters from VC6? It's almost as if MS is afraid of enabling real programmers to produce real cross-platform code. 'Tis a shame.
Ah well. At least Free Software won't let me down that way. I'm glad I switched to egcs.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:27PM
|
Because of course egcs supports the Standard C++ Library perfectly so cross platform support is easy.
#include
What? New style templated iostreams not available?
(of course VC's buggy STL implementation is even more painful, but egcs isn't perfect)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:17PM
|
Please don't take this personally, but maybe you should try producing some good software, then perhaps those comments will not pop up so often. Actually, I do produce good software. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that I am a gestalt entity formed out of every single one of the 30,000 or so Microsoft employees. Microsmurf
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Dear Gestalt Entity
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:15PM
|
Actually, I do produce good software.
oh, i wish you could maybe tell us what you're working on, 'cause what i've seen from you guys was mostly kinda lame. w/ n*10^4 developers, i'd imagine that you guys must be doing something right somewhere, just through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else, but if the one good program requires me to install windows 95 and IE4, I'm just not gonna do it 'cause it's dependent on stuff that's godawful (godawful by my standards, as far as that goes, and my opinion is informed).
I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that I am a gestalt entity formed out of every single one of the 30,000 or so Microsoft employees.
1. heh heh heh. gestalt entity. cool. heh heh. :)
2. yeah, but it's so much *easier* that way! :)
3. If your work, however excellent it may be, requires me to install unstable crap (see above) in order to use it, I might suggest that in terms of the product you *are* part of a gestalt entity for all practical purposes (actually, i should say, for all of *my* practical purposes; others may have other purposes all their own :)
I ain't a-gonna flame ya, pardner. I'm actually kinda weirdly innarested in what kinda people are lurnking behind the iron curtain over them parts and I'd groove on a response.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Clarification (same AC)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:17PM
|
What I meant with all that "if blah blah requires IE" was like, I understand that some or maybe even many MS programs *don't* require that (including maybe yours), so like, I meant that as in, like, not a figure of speech but something meaningful.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
In Defense of a Microserf (Score:1)
by Jonathan C. Patschke (jp@nospam.totalaccess.net) on Tuesday February 02, @01:44AM
(User Info) http://celestrion.totalaccess.net/
|
Even as I sit here, typing on my extremely flaky NT box, needing post-SP4 fixes, I must defend our dear Microserf....At least until NT crashes again. :) Seriously, just because a large amount of Microsoft code is bloated and made on a schedule of time, rather than a schedule of quality, that doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have at least a few quality developers. Microsoft has always pushed the limits of the hardware available. Back in the early '90s and late '80s, this meant figuring out cool hacks to get PCs to do things that their BIOSes never intended them to do. I mean, seriously, multitasking on an 80286 w/ 1 MB of RAM (remeber Windows 3.0?)!? Sadly, though, Microsoft seems to more highly regard glitz than speed, and keeps assuming that everyone upgrades as soon as Intel or AMD release their newest processor offerings. However, this does not mean that all Microsoft coders are bad programmers. Sometimes, marketing just wins-out and the good code doesn't make it because something "more user-friendly" (IE: flashy) was required for some PHB reason. 'Tis a sad thing, and probably the reason GPLed software tends to be leaner and faster--we don't have a technically inept marketing department telling us how to write our code. Just my $0.02
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WHERE'S THE LOVE?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:01PM
|
Where is the love in your heart that you would want to share software with people? Free software is cool, and people shouldn't try to restrict it from the non free world who hasn't yet seen the light. We must proselytize boldly. It is our destiny!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
please read the article before commenting on it (Score:1)
by Venomous Louse (thevoom@howce.com) on Monday February 01, @07:35PM
(User Info) http://
|
it makes sense that RMS is pushing this idea. It's fully in keeping with his ideology that ALL software should be free.
He is *encouraging* (in somewhat mild and mellow terms, for Stallman) authors of free software to help other free software authors in such a way that vendors of proprietary software will not be helped by their actions as well. He explicitly states that if a free [speech] library merely duplicates functionality already available from a proprietary library, then you should use the LGPL so that proprietary authors will feel free to use yours instead of the proprietary one. He would rather have proprietary software use LGPL libraries than purely proprietary libraries, all other things being equal. He says this about it:
This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another -- no problem for them, only for us.
He nowhere says anything about forcing anybody to do anything; he merely says that free software should first benefit the free software community. No one can argue with his right to speak on the subject (although I personally think that your right is equal, 'cause I'm a wimpy liberal type :), because the vast majority of the free software community is using his compiler with his libraries; he's not saying "gimme", y'know? He's saying, "here's why I'm giving you this stuff under these conditions, and here's why, for our mutual benefit, we should both behave that way." He's saying, "Please support the community which supports you." Personally, I can't see anything even remotely bad about that. You "pay" for MS's libraries with money; you "pay" for the GNU readline library in a different way. Since it belongs to GNU, they can put any terms they like on it. They can give you the library under the condition that you wear a bra and sing Puccini arias in Korean on St. Patrick's Day, for example, but they're not doing that. If they did, I think I'd decline the offer and use somebody else's libraries. The present license seems a lot more reasonable to me, but then again I can't carry a tune and I don't speak Korean. YMMV.
It's fully in keeping with his ideology that ALL software should be free.
No, actually, it's a distinct MELLOWING of his "ideology that ALL software should be free". He is explicitly stating that it's a Good Thing for unfree software to benefit from LGPL'd libraries. If MS started using gcc, he'd probably be happy about it. Hell, he'd probably get a belly-laugh out of it.
His philosophical position places him in a mutual death-grip with BillG
Crap. You're thinking of Eric Raymond. He's the one with a grudge against Gates and Microsoft (though I'm not saying it's not justified); Stallman has repeatedly stated that Microsoft is just one more proprietary software company, and not all that much of an exceptionally bad one. Maybe they're worse than most in a lot of ways, but by Stallman's standards, what's really bad about them is precisely the same thing that's really bad about Sun. You're doing Stallman's ideas a great disservice by not reading him more closely before commenting.
We can only hope that RMS and BillG will one day see that we live in a world that lies between their ideologies.....
As I hope I've successfully demonstrated, Stallman already lives in a world between Gates' ideology, and the ideology that you attribute to Stallman.
-j "C'mon, honey, pull up your socks!" -- Tom Waits |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Re: Oh dear, ideology clouds objectivity (again) (Score:1)
by Z0z on Monday February 01, @07:44PM
(User Info) |
You seem to forget something, RMS doesn't give a damn about the commercial success of linux. His goal, was to create a completely free operating system, and to ensure freedom to programmers.
The fact that commercial software can sometimes ride on the coattails of your work is a fact about the LGPL. RMS is suggesting merely that you think about what license you are comforable with.
It's all about freedom and freedom means choice. Think before all of you spout off incoherently about one of the few people who has dedicated his life to freedom and how he's trying to take yours away.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This is stupid (Score:1)
by Twig on Monday February 01, @05:52PM
(User Info) |
It will force all proprietary software developers to have to develop their own libraries for functions that people more than likely already have insalled via a GPL library... so you will end up with two or more versions of the same sets of routines to perform the same functions... Further, the proprietary developers will more than likely statically link their binaries to their own libraries and include copies with every package they distribute. Result: bloatware.
-- Ben Clarke |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
but it only bloats the propriatary code (Score:1)
by Nathaniel on Monday February 01, @06:26PM
(User Info) |
So it's another nail in propriatary software's coffin. So what? Are you saying that's a bad thing?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This Makes Sense (Score:1)
by sterwill (twig@advancenet.net) on Monday February 01, @07:00PM
(User Info) http://www.io.nu/
|
It will force all proprietary software developers to have to develop their own libraries for functions that people more than likely already have insalled via a GPL library... so you will end up with two or more versions of the same sets of routines to perform the same functions... Perhaps you missed the part about keeping very common functionaly (like the C library) in Lesser GPLed collections. Proprietary software vendors don't let me look at, re-compile, modify, or redistribute THEIR code, why should I bend over to let them use mine? This isn't a matter of vengeance or spite, but a very practical organizational issue. If a proprietary software vendor is so concerned about being able to use software others have written, maybe that vendor should also be comfortable in providing. Further, the proprietary developers will more than likely statically link their binaries to their own libraries and include copies with every package they distribute. Result: bloatware. Since when has proprietary software not been full of re-implementations of common algorithms? That is exactly the price you pay when you hoard all your work, and in return, your competitors hoard theirs. If such programs weren't kept locked down and secret under a platform-specific, binary encoding, such problems wouldn't exist, would they?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Premature (Score:1)
by Ramana on Monday February 01, @05:52PM
(User Info) |
While I personally use GPLed software whenever practical, alienating proprietary software companies at this time is not very wise. Especially closing something like glibc, is sure to alienate everybody from Oracle/Informix/Sybase to Star Office. Linux needs to really establish marketshare before anything like that can be tried.
Ramana
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Read his post again
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:07PM
|
He's not for closing off glibc. There are dozens of C libraries that provide similar functions. It's only the UNIQUE libraries (I assume stuff like gtk among others) that he advocates using the full GPL for.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
GPL'ing gtk will hurt GNOME (Score:1)
by elflord on Monday February 01, @06:20PM
(User Info) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord
|
GNOME will have no chance of attracting commercial apps if gtk is GPL'd. I guess all the commercial apps will just have to use KDE ...
-- Elflord
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Read his post again (Score:1)
by Phil-14 (pgfatglobalreachdotnet) on Monday February 01, @07:41PM
(User Info) |
"It's only the UNIQUE libraries (I assume stuff like gtk among others)..."
Actually, gtk isn't unique. It can be replaced by Motif. Bloated as heck, and costs money...)
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita pgfatglobalreachdotnet |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Premature
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:09PM
|
yeah, DUDE, exactly. which is exactly what he said.
He never ever said he was going to GPL glibc. you might want to read the article again; perhaps even a few more times.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Premature (Score:1)
by Ramana on Monday February 01, @06:32PM
(User Info) |
He might not have said it, but I am very sure this question is going to surface sooner or later. I have fundamentally no problem with moving glibc to GPL from LGPL. I just hope it won't be done prematurely. Any move to close libraries at this time will make comapanies take notices of the risks involved in porting to Linux. Linux community has been hammered enough with "no support" FUD even when the support from many commercial companies is a joke. There a will be a fresh round of FUD by journalists that companies are taking a huge risk by depending on glibc. Do we really want that.
Ultimately, open source idea might take firm root,
and we will have enough clout force companies to
open their source. But at present, when people
are just beginning to take notice of Linux, any anti business behavior is suicidal.
Ramana
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Premature
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:48PM
|
| We need big business support for Linux! We must have it at any cost! We couldn't have made it this far if it weren't for all the support we've enjoyed from big business! We can't do anything for ourselves! If no business wants to dance with us, we need to give ourselves a makeover! We must lower our standards! We must loose our cherry or become an old maid! We must bend over backwards! We must allow proprietary, buggy, bloated binary-only modules in our kernel! We must use WordPerfect instead of emacs/TeX/LyX! We must run an enormous staticly-linked-Motif Netscape binary so we can have our all-important CSS, Cookies, and JavaScript! We must give up our liberty for some temporary security! Why can't you all see this? It's so clear to me...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Pathetic
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:26PM
|
You sound disturbed. Is it because you like to be
in the narrow circle of the true believers and
everyone else is scoffed at ?
We need more people and ss I see it Ramana is right. Before the FS idea is widely accepted and its business case is better understood, people are
going to be carefull. Scare them now and they go further into the hands of you now who.( Hm strange
RMS does not understand this )
Actually it doesn't matter much
if something is open source or not as long
as it sticks to public standards and is not
burdened by patents.
RMS is waaay off here. LGPL is much better as
an instrument for establishing public standards
than GPL. This is the real issue. To write the
code is the easier part of the game.
Always anonymous,
but never a coward
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
NOBODY WANTS TO GPL GLIBC, ESPECIALLY NOT RMS
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:47PM
|
I have fundamentally no problem with moving glibc to GPL from LGPL
Yeah? Well, fortunately, Richard M. Stallman does have a problem with doing that.
He has never done it, and he's not going to do it, and if you read Slashdot, you might want to go there and check out the little essay that Richard M. Stallman just posted on Slashdot, which is an essay all about how Richard M. Stallman is NOT going to GPL glibc, get it? I will quote to you from that essay, of which you seem to be blissfully unaware:
This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us.
You see? It's really not that bad. It's easy to find out what the words say; all you have to do is READ THEM.
Wolcott Gibbs
gibbs@ross.com
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree (Score:1)
by HRbnjR (chris@hubick.com) on Monday February 01, @05:53PM
(User Info) http://www.hubick.com/
|
Why should a company be able to make money off my contribution to the free software community!? It just doesn't seem right. I think infrastructure should be free for commercial use (LGPL), such as things that will allow a company to adopt Linux as a platform for their commercial software. I think software that supplies specialized functionality in a certain domain, such as anything application related like a spreadsheet library, should only be free for use in other free software (GPL).
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
GPL does *NOT* stop companies from making money! (Score:1)
by Dauphin on Monday February 01, @06:46PM
(User Info) http://www.seawood.org/
|
Anyone who thinks that the GPL will save their precious code from being sold obviously hasn't read the GPL or ignores the reality of companies like RedHat. IMO, that sort of ignorance is part of the problem surrounding the GPL. To quote from an essay I wrote last year,
"A number of people just use GPL for their programs because they are told that it will keep their programs free. They never bother to question the definition of free. They assume that it keeps the source freely available and stops commercial companies from using your source. This is not true. GPL stops your source from being used in proprietary applications that will be distributed. It does not stop a commercial company from using it nor does it stop developers from using your code to create proprietary programs for their own use since they did not distribute their modifications (one interpretation of the license)."
That said, I think GPL'd libraries are a bad idea as they limit the usefulness of the library. With regards to keeping the code under the copyleft, the LGPL gives you the same protections as the GPL. However, the LGPL doesn't force the copyleft onto code that you did not write. The GPL does.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
They already are (Score:1)
by Greg Newton (gregnewton(at)netscape.net) on Monday February 01, @08:15PM
(User Info) |
People who are currently doing this include Red Hat*, Caldera, SUSE, Infomagic, Walnut Creek. Your work sells these people's CD's. Taking it a step further other people make money out of supporting your work or making products that work with your work. Another step further still, people (like my employer and thus myself) make money using your product
(* - gee I wonder why they are so determined to support GPL)
You should actaully READ the GPL sometime.
---- Backwards compatible -- If it's not backwards it's not compatible |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Reply to self (Score:1)
by Greg Newton (gregnewton(at)netscape.net) on Monday February 01, @08:30PM
(User Info) |
Addendum: I just reallised what I wrote may be taken as having a negative tone. There is nothing wrong with these people making money off this software. The authors of the software allowed it when they released it under the GPL and almost all the companies I have mentioned have in some way or another given something back, by providing things such as freely available distros, new software and FTP sites etc.
If you don't want people to make money out of your work you should use a liscence like the one used by the povray team (and they/you should not be critised for doing it -- it's their/your perogative). You should however take all of this into considerationa dn not just automatically use a liscence becuase other people use it. Some people could find offensive the idea of someone else making sizable profits out their hard work, while they make nothing.
(now if only I could figure out a way of making enough money out of free software to quit my job ;-)
---- Backwards compatible -- If it's not backwards it's not compatible |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
He makes a _very_ good point. (Score:1)
by desertAngel (desertangel@mindless.com) on Monday February 01, @05:56PM
(User Info) http://members.xoom.com/desertangel/
|
Am I the only one that agrees? If they want to be propriatary, it will be at a price. Commercial software vendors charge for software. This means that they have money with which they can buy propriatary libraries. They shouldn't take a free ride on the open source community without giving something back. Let them chose one way or another. Also, if they _really_ require an open source library, then their program will just have to be open source. God forbid.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
He makes a _very_ counterproductive point. (Score:1)
by Craig (craig@NoSpam.airnet.net) on Monday February 01, @06:23PM
(User Info) |
| > Also, if they _really_ require an open source library, then their program will just have to be open source. If the GPL only required that the source be provided to the end user, thus meeting only one of the three criteria for "free/RMS" software, many ISVs would have no problem with it. But it requires that the author of the software relinquish all control over its use and contents, except that nobody else may have any control over its use and contents, either. This is why we have proliferating licenses -- NPL, Artistic, etc... The GPL may have some residual use. But overenthusiastic, ideology-driven use of the GPL without careful consideration of its possible consequences will do more harm to the open software movement than Bill Gates and the MicroBorg ever could. Observe that if the GNU C library were GPLed, for example, we would never have any company porting commercial software to Linux. Is this really what you want? If so, fine; but many of us want Linux to move out of its hacker niche, for the sake of the future of computing, and without commercial software to at least give it an entry into the world of the suits who control budgets, it's not likely to. Remember that the next time you fire up Netscape 4... Craig
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Read the article before commenting. (Score:1)
by Venomous Louse (thevoom@howce.com) on Monday February 01, @07:57PM
(User Info) http://
|
Observe that if the GNU C library were GPLed, for example, we would never have any company porting commercial software to Linux. Is this really what you want?
That is not what Stallman wants, and he said so in his article. In the article, Stallman explicitly stated that many libraries should be LGPL'd. That is the SPECIFIC EXAMPLE that Stallman gave. That library WILL NOT be GPL'd. It is LGPL'd, and it will remain so.
Anyway, if you can bitch about the license under which Stallman releases his code, he can certainly make polite suggestions (and if you'd even glanced at his article, you'd've noticed that that's what he's doing) about how you license yours. And if you don't like the terms under which GNU has released certain libraries that ARE GPL'd (e.g. the readline library), why then you can just go off and write your own. You pay Microsoft for their software by giving them a lot of money; you pay Richard Stallman for readline by letting him see your source code. For glibc, you don't ahve to pay Richard Stallman at all, in any way, shape, or form, neither with source nor with money. And you are complaining about this?
-j "C'mon, honey, pull up your socks!" -- Tom Waits |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
We want commercial motif apps (NOT) (Score:1)
by elflord on Monday February 01, @06:28PM
(User Info) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord
|
Nice idea, but if this is followed through on, we will not see commercial apps ported to open desktop projects ( such as KDE and GNOME) , and the open source desktops will be ignored by the commercial software vendors. The end result: more bloated static binaries using proprietry toolkits, and no coherent desktop for linux
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
He makes a _very_ good point.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:05PM
|
Don't forget that commerical software vendors often (perhaps inadvertently) contribute back to the open source community when they use open source libraries.
There are lots of programmers out there who have spent time (whilst being paid by their employers to work on proprietary software) learning how to use the open source libraries. Having that knowledge they subsequently spend time contributing in the form of bug reports, bug fixes, further development of those open source libraries, or perhaps in their own time developing open source applications.
If you split the programming community into two totally separate groups of proprietary and open source people, they will both be worse off.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
It's not a big thing. (Score:1)
by palpatine (jalami@gcs.bc.ca) on Monday February 01, @05:56PM
(User Info) http://www.gcs.bc.ca
|
LGPL is around for a reason, such as its uses in the GNU C library. I believe that the point RMS is trying to make is that people who make Open Source libraries generally don't consider using the GPL instead of LGPL. In some cases, using the GPL might be better. I for one think that using the full GPL for the Troll Tech Qt libraries would serve the same purpose for Troll Tech as the QPL--that is, limiting the use for commercial endeavours. I'm guessing that Troll Tech didn't even look at the full GPL because of their assumption that libraries only use LGPL.
In any case, the name doesn't matter, it's just the content of the licence that matters. The name should just be an indication of the licence's purpose. By the way, are the contents of licences in the public domain? Could I just copy a licence (or legal disclaimer) and use it as my own?
-- Jeff Alami. Director, GCS. jalami@gcs.bc.ca |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Copy all you want
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:07PM
|
of course the licenses are free... you think RMS would go to all this trouble to push the GPL and then restrict it so no one else can use it?
heh that would br SILLY
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
It's not a big thing.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:16PM
|
My guess Troll Tech really doesnt want a seperate branch to the Qt library come into existance wich sources it cant reintegrate into their commercial distribution. (Any source linked into a binary distribution of a Qt derived library is automatically licensed to Troll Tech to be used in their commercial distribution)
Given the work they put into the Qt I find it reasonable, I dont know if this makes them one of the better candidates as the widget library for a Linux UI though.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
licenses can be copywrited
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:27PM
|
I believe Microsoft sells their EULA to other companies.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
better not happen
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:56PM
|
I use and enjoy Linux but I will drop it the day RMS makes it impossible for me to use it for commercial software development, since that is what I do.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
TANSTAAFL, moron.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:05PM
|
I will drop [Linux] the day RMS makes it impossible for me to use it for commercial software development, since that is what I do.
Are you drunk? For one thing, RMS does not have any control over Linux at all; Linux is a project which is in the hands of Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and a number of others. It has nothing to do with Richard Stallman. They happen to release their work under the GPL, but that's their decision.
Secondly, RMS gave you a free compiler, and now you're moaning because he won't give you MORE handouts? While you use the handouts you've already got to turn a profit? And of course, you're giving nothing whatsoever back to RMS or to the community. Fuck you, you whining, whimpering, grasping, cheap little sonuvabitch, if you dare demand that he give you even more, when you'll never give him anything in return. BUY a fucking proprietary compiler if you don't like it. Dumbass creep. The standard GNU libraries are LGPL'd, and Stallman's essay says that they're gonna stay that way. That's already a fuck of a lot more than a cheap little shit like you deserves. Deal with it.
Pay for what you get, asshole. TANSTAAFL.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
better not happen
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:39PM
|
Well using the linux kernel should be OK... and we can always snarf more FreeBSD (or other free) utilities and libraries. Losing gcc would be sad, since the kernel is fairly gcc specifig... but it could re-written to use another compiler.
If rms makes FSF code too hard for us to use, we just need to find free code instead.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
RMS does not want to GPL libc/system libs! (Score:1)
by Andy Tai (atai@ucsd.edu) on Monday February 01, @10:33PM
(User Info) http://vision.ucsd.edu/~atai/softwarewar.gif
|
| RMS cannot take make existing libraries GPLed if he wants to. What's released as LGPLed will always stay LGPLed, even if RMS wants to do otherwise. People can always keep enhancing the existing libraries if RMS decides to GPL future libraries. And GET THIS STRAIGHT: RMS is reasonable. It has been pointed out many times that RMS DOES NOT INTEND TO GPL EXISTING LGPLed SYSTEM LIBRARIES because he sees the utilities of the LGPL for these libraries!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree - no contradiction (Score:1)
by shani on Monday February 01, @05:58PM
(User Info) |
RMS is a nut. He wants everything to be free. Where's the contradiction?
I like being able to use downloaded software, even when I don't have the source. How many of you Linux fans are using Netscape and/or WordPerfect? Do you think you would be able to if they were compilied using GPL libraries? No way Corel would give out its source code! What about Oracle and so on? All Linux code would end up being forced into being GPL. Hey, I have an idea..let's kill all commercial Linux products! We never liked playing Quake anyway, right?
Come on - use your heads, people. While I think it's cool to have the Un-Bill Gates out there, we have to remember that he is a Red. :)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Please read what RMS said.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:19PM
|
RMS did not say that all libraries should
be released under the GPL. In fact, he said
that *most* libraries *should* be released
under the LGPL in the future. Only libraries
with no proprietary equivalents should be released
GPL (How could a port of proprietary software
even use a library for which there is no
proprietary equivalent??).
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Opposed to name change
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @05:58PM
|
There are those of us who do not want to
disadvantage proprietary/other free license
software programmers. Thus some people
use LGPL for libraries and not GPL.
So it still is used as a 'Library General Public License'.
Besides it is 'more' not 'lesser' because you're allowed
to do stuff with LGPL'd code that is not allowed under GPL.
//Steve Cheng
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Two words: (Score:1)
by scrytch on Monday February 01, @06:00PM
(User Info) http://
|
Locked In.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Two words: Free Software (Score:1)
by Matthew Weigel on Monday February 01, @07:22PM
(User Info) http://
|
You're a moron. Normally I don't use that strong a word for such silliness, but COME ON , how 'locked in' can you be to free software?
Are you stuck with an unusable program because the author got killed in a car crash? Fix it. Are you unhappy with the available software, which comes close to your needs, but doesn't quite meet them? Fix it.
If I were ever totally locked in to free software, I would be the most free I've ever been.
--Matthew |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
But what about the distributions? (Score:1)
by Bruce Perens (bruce@opensource.org) on Monday February 01, @06:02PM
(User Info) http://www.opensource.org/
|
| Most Linux distributions don't like to have GPL-ed libraries because they want their customers to be able to develop proprietary software easily. Debian, for example, had a significant problem with bison.simple (a parser component, not really a library but close) when it restricted its use in proprietary software. The result was that its license was changed. If Debian, a seriously GNU system, had this problem, how will the other distributions deal with GPL-ed libraries? I suspect that dists like Red Hat simply won't include them. Some reasonable accomodation of proprietary software is not a bad idea. Bruce
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Nicely put.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:24PM
|
In fact, Red Hat has stated in the past that it will not (or if it does, its a mistake) ship GPL'ed libraries.
Personally, I suggest that people start LGPL'ing _applications_ as well as _libraries_.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Irrelevant
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:27PM
|
The set of libraries under discussion are those that have no proprietary alternative. Therefore if, say, Red Hat excluded these GPL'd libraries, programmers on that OS would not have access to that functionality at all. They are unlikely to do that.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
But what about the distributions?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:55PM
|
An interesting paradox or contradition here...
Some folks are greatly opposed to proprietary
software yet want licenses which accomodate
proprietary software.
Reminds me of "The Onion" which had a funny
fake article about the ACLU defending the
rights of hate groups to burn down the ACLU
headquarters.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Re: But what about the distributions?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:43PM
|
I think the problem here is people's varying definitions of "freedom". Are we saying that all source should be free and we're willing to do anything to make that ideal come to fruition, or are we saying that coders should be free to do what is necessary to release a good piece of code?
If we're going to defend free speech, we must defend the rights of people to oppose even that which we believe most fundamentally.
RMS is expressing his views, he's not removing the LGPL (thank god) but just discouraging people from using it. This might be laughable, except that it is coming from the creator of a wonderful software license which has had the effect of allowing wonderfully debugged and optimised code to be released to the average user. If we truly believe in good software, we will continue to use the LGPL dispite RMS's objections because it does not prevent even horrible evil commercial enterprises from using efficient, working code.
If we're for freedom to use source freely, we must give that freedom even to our enemies.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Re: But what about the distributions?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:25PM
|
| If we're for freedom to use source freely, we must give that freedom even to our enemies. Exactly. We're not going to win friends in the proprietary circles if we say "Sorry, you can't come play with us until you've completely changed the way you do business." We know freely sharing your code develops the best products, but convincing the world of this overnight isn't going to happen anytime soon. It's going to be a long battle, maybe we'll win, maybe we'll just continue to exist as we are, self-sufficent but by no means dominant. Personally, I think the most convincing argument to give to an "old-school" developer is to say: "Here's a library already written for you, take it, use it, it's free with no strings. Complements of the Free Software Community." That's what I see the LGPL as (althought the Berkeley License is probably closer). The GPL is a lot less "free". Do we want free software development? or "Our" kind of software development? Forcing someone to freely release source code when they haven't been convinced it's a good thing (yet) seems like the best way I can see to get them to not develop anything Open Source. Jamie
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
But what about the distributions? (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Monday February 01, @10:56PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
You'll notice that he is pushing for GPL'd libraries only in the cases where there is no proprietary alternative. In that case, RedHat has a choice of a GPL'd library or no library at all. Either way, the proprietary developers won't be able to use the library, so they might as well including the library.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Nah; convenience over Universal Purity
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:06PM
|
Free software should be a solid base of stuff that is so common that it shouldn't have to get written more than once. I'm all for the idea of programming for love and sharing out of goodwill, but I don't buy the whole 'really really try to make all software GNU-free, and throw spikes in the path of proprietary programmers to that end' part of the GNU philosophy. I mean, will the world really go that way? Would we programmers like it if it did? I guess don't mind this slant when it's applied to high level, high originality things, but low level stuff should stay LGPL.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
RMS Sucks
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:10PM
|
Because he's a hippie and hippies suck.
Cartmanisms aside, he does have a good point, but it kind of makes me nervous. It'd take some very careful evaluating to determine what should be released under what license. I think stuff should definitely be lgpled if there is a commercial alternative that parallels its functioality (IE: QT vs GTK...) If you have a truly unique library, GPLing it instead of lGPLing it would be advantage: Open Source. At least until some company came along and wrote a parallel...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
You suck, not RMS, really (Score:1)
by Andy Tai (atai@ucsd.edu) on Monday February 01, @10:45PM
(User Info) http://vision.ucsd.edu/~atai/softwarewar.gif
|
| Come on, read RMS's writings carefully before you attack him. It has been pointed out many times above that RMS wants to GPL libraries that have no proprietary equivalent. He wants Free libraries with proprietary equivalents LGPLed. That's the same as what you want: I think stuff should definitely be lgpled if there is a commercial alternative that parallels its functioality (IE: QT vs GTK...) If you have a truly unique library, GPLing it instead of lGPLing it would be advantage: Open Source since you and RMS are saying the same thing, why do you attack RMS?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This is counterproductive (Score:1)
by ja (ja@linux.nu) on Monday February 01, @06:10PM
(User Info) http://
|
If a library is released under LGPL, free for commercial use, we'll have the added input/bugfixes from commercial developers.
This will increase quality for everyone.
--
If instead commercial developers must supply their own proprietary routines, the free world won't have acces to them.
How is this supposed to be a GoodThing ??
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Embrace and Extend?? (Score:1)
by Julian Morrison (julian@zereau.net) on Monday February 01, @06:13PM
(User Info) |
A year ago, I would have said no way - you'd scare off the suits. Even now I'm not really sure, but I think that now or soon the OSS movement will have momentum enough to start dictating our own terms. Doing it this way is probably the gentlest andb est way. Ironically, I expect the "embrace and extend" strategy to work even better for us than it does for M$. :-D
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This will split us (Score:1)
by Lars Clausen on Monday February 01, @06:14PM
(User Info) |
This will just cause a greater split between free software and commercial software. It'll be more difficult to use a free platform for commercial software, so the lack of applications that was just starting to disappear will come again. Fragmentation is dangerous, see what happened to the commercial Unixen. Now that we finally have some companies jumping aboard, we shouldn't shove them back off. This is just as bad a move as making libraries commercial, since it'll limit the freedom of developers.
-Lars
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
It depends on what you want... (Score:1)
by Booker (sandeen.no@spam.io.com) on Monday February 01, @06:14PM
(User Info) http://
|
If you want more software for the platform, then LGPL is the way to go. Take Quicken for example - if they ever port it, it'll be sooner if they can build on LGPL'd libraries. If they had to do everything from scratch, they probably wouldn't even consider it.
On the other hand, if you want a whole universe of free software, then GPL is the way to go, because it gives advantage to free software coders, and no one else. And eventually, there will be good free replacement for Quicken (for example).
I think the GPL'd libraries would tend to segregate the software world into free and non-free to a greater degree. In a GPL-only world, there'd be fewer commercial apps available for Linux. Some think that's a good thing, some don't.
I'm not sure what I think... I like my WP for Linux, but I don't entirely trust it...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
It depends on what you want...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:45PM
|
RMS isn't advocating 100% GPL universe, otherwise he wouldn't have created the LGPL in the first place.
RMS is playing the carrot on a stick game, and I tend to agree with him.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
It depends on what you want... (Score:1)
by Vidar Hokstad (v@ncg.net) on Monday February 01, @08:18PM
(User Info) http://linux.ncg.net/
|
| The problem is that this doesn't really help. Less LGPL'd libraries give a greater barrier of entry for part time developers that work on applications that are too small or simple to generate a secondary market for support etc. On the other hand, it reduces the incentive to port for large companies that are used to closed source software, at the same time as it creates a viable market for proprietary third party software components, segmenting the market further.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
It depends on what you want...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:09PM
|
I would counter and say, *more* great GLPd libraries increases the incentive to GPL your project just so you can use leverage off the 2-3 million lines of source in that GPLd library you want to use.
Of course there will always be applications for use of LGPL, nobody (aleast RMS or I) is advocating 100% GPL.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Less semantics, more software.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:14PM
|
| Luser: What's GNU? Answer: GNU's not UNIX! Luser: What's UNIX? Free software is here to stay, thank you, RMS. But
please understand that ordinary persons could not
care less about licenses. If you want to see free
software used as widely as possible, it must
be usable. Usability should be your number one concern and
lecture topic now that the viability of free
software is without question.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Zen and the GPL
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:16PM
|
The free software that can also be non-free
software is not the true free software.
Think about it. That's why the GPL is necessary.
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Screw you, RMS (Score:1)
by heroine (broadcast@earthling.net) on Monday February 01, @06:20PM
(User Info) http://heroine.tampa.fl.us
|
As for RMS telling me how I can and can not license my work, screw you.
I give out a lot of code and use Debian but I do know how hard it is to find a job, let alone find income outside your day job to fund your day job. If I had a source of income to fund what I want to do I would use it and give out a lot more free code.
Unfortunately, the only chance a lot of programmers have at getting a project done is to fund it through the code itself. I support other programmers who can't find income outside their coding projects and since I also like seeing Linux used in industry, will continue to use the A terminology like "library".
As for RMS trying to fsck the corporate acceptance of Linux with cheap vocabulary shots, this megalomaniac is going to kill Linux if that's what it takes for his ego to prevail. I can see the Valentine's day document already:
"What would you rather have: 'Windows 2000 Terminal Server Edition Back Office Suite Pack 3' or 'The Lesser Library' sustaining your business? You know, last halloween it seemed like open source software had done us in, but it looks like that model has just got to much dead driftwood clogging it up to be much of a threat."
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
You Nut (Score:1)
by sterwill (twig@advancenet.net) on Monday February 01, @07:07PM
(User Info) http://www.io.nu/
|
As for RMS telling me how I can and can not license my work, screw you. Perhaps my eyes are failing, but could you point me to the exact sentence where he tells you that you must use the GPL at all? Did I miss the clause that says Richard can hold a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you don't use the GPL? Perhaps there's a clause about brutal dismemberment or bodily mutilation in there, as a result of not using the LGPL. How about his draft to change the laws of all nations so that poor little opressed "heroine" must release his software under licenses drafted only by Mr. Stallman himself? Learn to read. Then learn to comprehend.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Ingrate.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:26PM
|
Your use of ANY GPL/LGPL just exposes you as a hypocrite.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I am telling you to shup up and think
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:07PM
|
RMS is not dictating what you can or cannot do. Why do some people react to everyting RMS says as if he were some kind of mad dictator who sends evil GNU zealots to burn everyone who does not relicense their code under GPL?
He has brought up a good idea how to encourage more people to create free software - he is not proposing to change all LGPL software to GPL software. If someone were to write new library and license it under GPL why should that 'freak out' any commercial software developers? It's not as if they are forced to use that library.
As for calling LGPL Lesser GPL - I think it is a brilliant idea.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
He has a good point (Score:1)
by Bill Currie (bill@taniwha.tssc.co.nz) on Monday February 01, @06:21PM
(User Info) |
For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
"Come with me, and together we shall rule the world" (probably misqoted).
GPL or no go for me, I think.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
He has a good point (Score:1)
by axolotl on Monday February 01, @07:07PM
(User Info) |
It was "Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son."
axolotl
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
He has a good point (Score:1)
by Bill Currie (bill@taniwha.tssc.co.nz) on Monday February 01, @09:05PM
(User Info) |
Actually, I was reffering to a a different pair (S/J), even though I'm not religious my self. But at least you got the basic idea.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Forcing companies to use GPL will backfire (Score:1)
by timur (nospam_timur@tabi.org) on Monday February 01, @06:22PM
(User Info) http://www.tabi.org
|
If a company has a proprietary product, they can't use libraries which force them to release their source code under the GPL. It just won't work. Why should there be a ware between free and proprietary software? Why can't we have both? If there is a free product that is as good or better than a proprietary one, competition will crush the proprietary one. It's natural selection in the software world. We don't need artificial barries forcing software one way or another.
The only thing that will happen is the the libraries won't get used as much. And so we'll have two competiting libraries: one for free software and one for proprietary software. The resulting confusion will hurt BOTH kinds of software, since there won't be a common standard. I believe RMS alluded to this problem when he talked about the advantage of the LGPL, but now it appears that he wants to create a real war between the two kinds of software. He's not satisified that competition will be enough. I don't like that attitude.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
... In Windows, no one can hear you scream |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Right Said Fred! (Score:1)
by Bill Currie (bill@taniwha.tssc.co.nz) on Monday February 01, @06:39PM
(User Info) |
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi,
I'm too sexy for this thread...:)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Forcing companies to use GPL will backfire
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:06PM
|
| I believe RMS alluded to this problem when he talked about the advantage of the LGPL, but now it appears that he wants to create a real war between the two kinds of software. He's not satisified that competition will be enough. I don't like that attitude. You should like that attitude. There is a war between software development models (or a "competition," if you must -- they're the same damn thing). Proprietary vendors use their licenses and their lawyers to pressure the hell out of the average user and developer: You must do things the proprietary way or you'll be sued. You may not use our proprietary source code as part of an OSS project. You may not disassemble or reverse-engineer our library. A whole bunch of "You shall not"s in there... It's more than fair to stick it right back at them. The GPL's "restrictions" only hurt businesses and control freaks: they make it impossible to monopolize the product and command its future development. You can't restrict secondary distribution or modification with the GPL, and this is considered "restrictive" and "manipulative" by the RMS-bashers. Come on! This only restricts your ability to be restrictive... This hurts the average coder how, exactly? Answer: not at all. Summary: Call it "competition," call it "war," whatever; it's happening. The battle plan of OSS should not be to get a makeover and jump into bed with the enemy.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Get a clue
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:06PM
|
RMS is saying that choice of GPL/LGPL is stratgic. It *would* be dumb to make all free libs GPLed.
Take readline for example:
I could impliment all of what I need from readline in about two weeks, or I could go GPL and not waste the time.
The GPL prevents corps from exploiting our free code for their own uses without giving back. Sometime giving code to people who dont give back still benifits us (bug finding, and compatibility).
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Got clue?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:14PM
|
| Or you could reimplement it in two weeks, and, since you believe that developers should be free to choose their own license, release your source code under BSD or Artistic or XFree or Apache or MPL or ....
The GPL Is Not The Only Free License.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Forcing companies to use GPL will backfire
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:37PM
|
He just wants to create *incentive* to write free
software by forcing anyone who wants to use a
*unique*, *useful*, library that has no proprietary
equivalent to GPL their code. That's all.
He is *not* saying that *all* libraries should
be released under the GPL from now on!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Forcing companies to use GPL will backfire (Score:1)
by Vidar Hokstad (v@ncg.net) on Monday February 01, @08:04PM
(User Info) http://linux.ncg.net/
|
| The more likely result is that this will create a market for third party proprietary libraries for the free OS's, like we see in the Windows world - GPL is not an option for everyone. And a secondary effect of that will be that people who would have worked on open sourced libraries will find it in their interest to keep the library closed in order to make money off it. As an example of products that aren't well suited for releasing under GPL are products where the real value lie in the idea and design phase, and where the implementation can be made deceptively simple, and maintenance even more so. For businesses, open source encourages them to make their applications larger and more complex, to drive demand for support and service contracts etc. I've been there. One of the companies I've worked for had a product like that - a software solution that was completely maintenance free, required practically no configuration, and just plain worked, and the binary RPM was about 50kb. The cost and work involved were 95% design related. Less than 5% was spent on the actual coding. They considered open sourcing it, but decided against it, because the support needs were so low that support contracts wouldn't stand a chance of covering even the 5% of coding. This is one of the reasons why proprietary code will keep existing: Open source is great in the cases where it creates a secondary market that big enough to justify the development costs. Oh, and by the way: About 5-10% of the time spent on the coding was spent on implementing a decent hashed database implementation, because GDBM is GPL'd. Yeah, that was a nuisance, but the saving we'd get by releasing under GPL and using GDBM didn't get anywhere near driving down costs enough that it would be economically viable. However, had GDBM been LGPL'd, we might have contributed improvements to it, which would have been a win-win situation, instead of implementing an application specific replacement. In this case, the choice was clear: proprietary, or dropping the project entirely.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This could really suck for free software...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:26PM
|
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this also cut down on contributions to the general code base? If company X usues LGPL'd software in their proprietary software, there's still a good chance that if they make an upgrade they will release it. Now, if you cut off their ability to use code that is publically available, how do you expect them to contribute anything back...or why would they even want to?
I think RMS takes things way too far way too often...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
RMS - Open Source's Crazy Uncle Bob
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:26PM
|
I mostly disagree with what RMS said. Look, most people in the linux community want some commecial apps and would rather use linux at work than windows thus linux will need to aquire some commercial apps... Limiting the libraries in this way only serves to shut out companies and make them less likely to want to port which will send linux back under the rock, which is something I personally and I believe many others DONT want to happen.
Why force them to produce free software off of it, thats insane what company would do it? Hell the fact that some of them are giving their stuff away for non commecial use is a testament to the fact that they are trying to be more like Linux and OSS software in general but in the REAL world there are bills, investors, shareholder who want to get paid and its not like most companies can just become sources of free software.... ITS NOT REALISTIC.... not even optimistic...more like delusional
I would be more for a situation where you pay a nominal fee to a couple Linux/GNU orginizations that help pay for things like Linux Expo's or some devlopment costs ( maybe even fund OSS R & D to keep us moving forward ) if you want to use or link the binaries in commercial software... and I mean nominal ( maybe a couple cents per application shipped which would encourage Linux users to purchase some commercial software and yet still help the effort ).
I think the notion of all software being free is ridiculous.... I like the idea of a free OS because it levels the playing field and I generally like most OSS software and like anyone would use OSS over commercial given they both have very similar functionality, but thats not always the case, some companies still feel better will some commecial software...there s way too mcuh legacy use of many office suite to facilitate mass corporate switches to OSS everything, thus we need to encourage propietary ports as well...
I respect what RMS has done but I also think he is wrong many times.... he's sort of like everyones crazy uncle BOB... you really dont want the world to know he's related to you even though he's not all that bad
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
RMS - Open Source's Founding Father
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:43PM
|
Please... RMS said that making things like the
C library would be stupid (correct).
But a library *for* *which* *there* *is* *no*
*proprietary* *equivalent* should be released
under the GPL. This creates an incentive
to write GPL'd code. Proprietary companies
can still port their code to Linux and link it
against *standard* libraries (under LGPL).
AG
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
RMS - Open Source's Founding Father
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:43PM
|
oops: Please... RMS said that making things like the
C library GPL would be stupid (correct).
But a library *for* *which* *there* *is* *no*
*proprietary* *equivalent* should be released
under the GPL. This creates an incentive
to write GPL'd code. Proprietary companies
can still port their code to Linux and link it
against *standard* libraries (under LGPL).
AG
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
recommendation, not law (Score:1)
by dragisha (Jomu@NOSPAM.Linuks.ORG) on Monday February 01, @06:27PM
(User Info) http://Linuks.ORG
|
RMS has its believers and its folowers. Those are people who contribute or not contribute and people who decide will they or not do as he recommends.
He makes good points and advises people who care how to protect their work. IIRC, developers are free to release same software under different licenses for different users? IE, under GPL for free software community, and direct contract for anyone who pays them their work.
Of course, most people complaining/flaming here are simple free (as in free beer) software junkies and all they want is free-beer-ware. Some of others probably can't distinguish C library from gtk+.
-- Jomu@Linuks.ORG /me ignores AC posts |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
A shame, I think
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:28PM
|
If we start 'forcing' software developers to release libraries under the GPL instead of the LGPL, I think we further alienate the OpenSource from the Proprietary camp.
I work for a company that commercially exploits a FreeBSD based search-engine. At the moment we're using some small LGPL libraries (like libavl) and some BSD-style licensed source. If the licensing makes it impossible for a company to use open-source libraries, they'll probably go the extra mile and write most of the software inhouse. I doubt this will encourage people to open-source libraries and share with the community.
Mathijs (shrike@--remove-this--.il.fontys.nl)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
A shame, I think
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:50PM
|
Depends on how usefull/great that GPLd library is.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Whatever
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:30PM
|
If he keeps up his little antics I think you'll just see a lot more custom licenses or BSD-style licenses.
I think he's gotten a little too cocky over the past few years.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
RMS is getting too extremist (Score:1)
by Visoblast on Monday February 01, @06:31PM
(User Info) http://ro.com/~jeffj/
|
I appreciate RMS's position, but I don't agree. When I write a software library (I have a few Java libraries on my web site), I would like them to be used. Not many people use them at all, even though they are pretty good, so I should I keep a group of people from using them altogether? I want my software to be used -- else I may as well delete it from existance because it won't make any difference.
Furthermore, there will always be a place for commercial software. With commercial software paying people's saleries, free software will need more time and people to keep up with commercial software until the philosophy of free software is adopted on a wide scale. Software that deals with proprietary information or that does some new thing designed to make lots of money will remain commercial. Free software will find its home with software that everyone uses and who's sole intent is not to make money.
Because of these different roles of free and commercial software, I don't think free software should try to eliminate commercial software -- it can't. Commercial software will not go away (after all, what company wants to give away its secrets on how its latest e-commerce software works when that software is making the company huge sums of money?). We are all going to have to deal with commercial software. We all want nifty stuff like e-commerce because of its convince. So if the commercial software and free software can cooperate, then the quaility of the commercial software will improve in areas where free software is ahead, and will be benifit when we need to use the commercial software.
Just think of this intresting consequence of RMS's proposal: A wonderful new operating system is made that is total built with objects and is completly dynamic. It runs on microcontrollers, old single user PCs, and servers. Its incredibly fast. Its users want large databases, featurefull word processors, and other productivity type stuff. The users can't get the software for years because teh operating system was relased with GPL in such a way that commercial software on the platform is illegal. Businesses won't tuch it because they can't get support or apps on it. Users in general don't often use this technically superior OS because there isn't much to do on it save for programming, and few people want the programs. So, through lack of use, the OS stays the stuff of hackers, and nothing more.
Liunx is becoming more than the stuff of hackers now because of commercial activity on the platform. Linux will be helped because commercial software makers can put it to use and make commercial software for it. RMS apperently wouldn't like to see this happen again.
If busnesses use one set of software, the people who are not computer experts who are exposed to it may very well use it at home. With commercial software extending to personal use, and with lots of ad money that free software lacks, commercial software will remain the software of choice for personal users who are not computer experts.
We need one OS everywhere -- one FREE OS. To do that, free software must be usable from commercial software. Otherwise, commercial software will contiune to dominate business use because they don't have to release source code, and commercial software will dominate personal use because of its advertising.
Free softwrae cannot be everywhere, such as a free OS, until it becomes profitable for busniesses to use the free software. RMS seems to want to prevent this.
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode." |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
I Agree
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:32PM
|
The GPL got us to where we are today. Encouraging
more GPLd software is good thing.
It basically like waving a big bag of library goodies in front of a developer. They can either go GPL and partake of the goodies, or they reinvent the wheel.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I Agree (Score:1)
by scrytch on Monday February 01, @07:24PM
(User Info) http://
|
After which we're stuck with two incompatible wheels, so you have to use Brand X wheels (sold separately) to run Brand X software. GPL Wheels now run only GPL software, meaning Brand X software may as well pave new roads since it had to reinvent the whole concept of rolling anyhow.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I Agree
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:45PM
|
You lost me right after "After"
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
making money on free software (Score:1)
by four (four@shrub.net) on Monday February 01, @06:33PM
(User Info) http://www.shrub.net/~four
|
Ok, I'm all for GNU and all this shit.. but heres the deal, sometime in my life i would love to make some money. I have no problem contributing code to the people, releasing it for free... but how do i ever make any money?
- Four |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This sounds like Microsoft tactics to me...
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:34PM
|
This is really upsurd. Microsoft makes no limitations on me when I want to develop an app for their platform. I can release it under any license I want! Why force me to give up my rights as a developer by using a license that forces me to release things for free when I have THE RIGHT to release as anything I want!
It's this kind of rabid BS that makes people gravitate toward Microsoft products. Now, not only do I have to be a developer to write a commercial app for Linux, but I have to be a lawyer too? So I can figure out which license to pick?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
denigrate LGPL => marginalise Free OS's
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @02:15AM
|
Stallman is right in that 'the choice is a matter of strategy' - even though by those very words he expresses his 'us versus them' view of the world.
As he says, GPL is useful in that:
1) it encourages people to write more free software
2) if someone in the free software community writes a killer library, it stops Bill Gates from using it.
And, as he points out, LGPL is useful in that:
1) it serves to make the library more widely used.
2) it serves to take away from commercial libraries' popularity.
BUT also:
3) it will serve to attract people to release commercial software for Free OS's
This last is perhaps most significant of all. Free software can never hope to serve every purpose. It is ridiculous to think so. Commercial software is good. It can be specific-purpose. It drives innovation. 99% of code written will always likely be commercial.
*BUT* if a single commercial operating system is allowed to become universal and without competition, the results will be disastrous. Microsoft makes money by preventing choice and others' innovation, and must be destroyed.
So although 99% of code may be commercial, it will be the 1% of code that is free that 100% of people use, that is common, that will in the future ensure the commercial 'playing field' is even, so that software-for-money benefits everyone.
*HENCE* if we are to go a-crusading like Stallman, let it not be for a ridiculous ideal of 'killing all commercial software' - keeping things under the GPL (internal the the free software community) is like microsoft keeping something like the MFC's internal to MS, denying anyone the opportunity to write for windows.. And frankly, MS _might_ sometime soon have the kind of monopoly to make that possible, but -alas- we don't!
As some other responses have suggested, A re-evaluation of the licences is perhaps in order.
Moreover, because some degree of unity is of importance to the free software movement, it is something that should be dealt with.
A quote from the linuxworld article:
"...The only reason I can imagine for Red Hat to deny anyone the use of its name is if Red Hat became so religious about the GPL that it refused to have its name associated with any software that was non-GPL.
No doubt there are GPL fans out there who might take this stand. Some of them will proclaim that they like the GPL because its inventor Richard Stallman wanted to put an end to commercial software as we know it.
But is Bob Young the Richard Stallman of Red Hat? Let me tell you something. I know Bob Young. Bob Young is a friend of mine. And Bob Young is no Richard Stallman. Bob proudly states that he is behind the GPL for exactly the opposite reason most people think Richard Stallman created it. Bob Young wants to make money.
Bob Young employs programmers to write GPL code because he wants to make money. He believes in selling GPL software because it is like selling insurance. He believes people want to buy something that is guaranteed not to become obsolete. And they want to buy it from a reputable dealer"
End quote.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
GNOME is not GPL'ed!!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:38PM
|
We need a new Desktop system fast!!!! GNOME/GTK is not GPL'ed. BOYCOTT GNOME!!! We need to make a new Desktop system that is COMPLETELY GPL and not infected with the LESSER-GPL!!!!
Please email i@am.an.idiot.com if youre interested!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Pick your own license (Score:1)
by dmiller (dmiller@ilogic.com.au) on Monday February 01, @06:40PM
(User Info) http://www.ilogic.com.au/~dmiller/
|
RMS is once again trying to Balkanise the free software movement.
GPL is incompatible with the vast majority of free (or OpenSource) licenses. By encouraging people to GPL libraries he is attempting to force other developers to GPL software which may be better suited to another license.
Fortunatly most developers are smart enough to see through this, unfortunatly most pointy-hairs aren't. Result: more management resistance to free software.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I think you mean "unify" (Score:1)
by sterwill (twig@advancenet.net) on Monday February 01, @07:11PM
(User Info) http://www.io.nu/
|
RMS is once again trying to Balkanise the free software movement. Would you care to explain how encouraging more people to use (or to return to) an existing, often more appropriate license will "Balkanise" free software? I think you meant to write "unify".
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think you mean "unify" (Score:1)
by dmiller (dmiller@ilogic.com.au) on Monday February 01, @07:39PM
(User Info) http://www.ilogic.com.au/~dmiller/
|
Would you care to explain how encouraging more people to use (or to return to) an existing, often more appropriate license will "Balkanise" free software? I think you meant to write "unify". You are right. RMS is trying to unify the free software movement, much like Microsoft is trying to unify the operating systems market.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
What about non-profit organisations? (Score:1)
by mce (Michel Eyckmans (MCE)) on Monday February 01, @06:42PM
(User Info) http://
|
| As usual, the user (not the end user, but the library user) turns out to be the victim of the fights between the vendors. And RMS is just another lock-them-in vendor. The only difference is that he "accepts" (or "demands") a non traditional kind of payment. I work in a non-profit IT research organisation. That is: we do not sell our software for a living, even if we're into IT. But that does not mean that the full GPL is an option, because real life brings along some hard constraints imposed by partners in research projects, or goverment expectations that we generate spin-off companies (that must have a sellable product, obviously). And taking either of those out of the picture is not an option: we need the money (lots of it, because of the expensive equipment that we also need). Hence, LGPL is OK for us, but not GPL. And so RMS wants to condemn us to waste our time on implementing our own readline lib etc., instead of doing the things we are better at doing and that indirectly help to make the idea of `IT (and thus also software) is to be (accesssible to and) for everybody' more of a reality in the first place. How sad, including for the GNU idea itself. Just why does he have to be so confrontational? Why does he have this need to strictly divide the world into good guys and bad guys, ignoring anybody who does not fit in, and sort of killing his own "invention" in the process?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Important consideration....
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:43PM
|
Internal MS memo
Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. We are now seeking more libraries to release *under the ordinary MSPL*.
Free software developers have the advantage of the source; proprietary software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the MSPL for a library gives proprietary software developers an advantage over free developers: a library that they can use, while free developers cannot use it.
Using the MSPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a proprietary library's features are readily available for free software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give proprietary software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library.
This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the MSPL for ours would have driven free software developers to use another -- no problem for them, only for us.
However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like DirectX, that's a horse of a different color. Direct implements direct hardware access for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the MSPL and limiting its use to proprietary programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is proprietary software today specifically because that was necessary for using DirectX.
If we amass a collection of powerful MSPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to free software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new closed programs. This will be a significant advantage for further closed-software development, and some projects will decide to make software closed in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced (as we provide them with source after they sign NDAs).
Open Source software developers, seeking to deny the proprietary competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the MSPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in free software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We commercial software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to proprietary software only, we can help each other's closed-source software packages outdo the open alternatives. The whole commercial software movement will have more popularity, because closed software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Important consideration....
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @06:53PM
|
*ROFL&
That was great.
Too bad it strikes so close to the truth.
"Aren't they the enemy?
No son, we are our own enemy. We are no better than they are."
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Important consideration....
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:56PM
|
whoa! where was that quote from?
email me @ mass@ufl.edu
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Only one real trouble... (Score:1)
by HoserHead (hoserhead@bigfoot.com) on Monday February 01, @06:47PM
(User Info) http://www.woot.net
|
... and that's that other Free (Open Source) licenses can't use GPL'd libraries unless they, also, are GPL. So what, you say? Everything you need is GPL'd, you say? Perl isn't (Artistic license). Neither is Mozilla (Netscape Public License). Neither are a whole host of other applications that people depend on. RMS' comments would be 100% correct if we lived in a world where free == GPL; however, free can be a number of things, and therefore he's a bit off-base.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This is counterproductive
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:16PM
|
Gnu/linux and free-ish ware ain't no industry dominating giant that can dictate to software produces. Seems to me we would loose more than we would gain.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Can people read? (Score:1)
by stevenj (stevenj@mit.edu) on Monday February 01, @07:20PM
(User Info) http://web.mit.edu/stevenj/mosaic/steven.html
|
Sigh...I'm seeing a lot of overreactions here to something that is not really new. Reality check: - RMS is not saying that all free libraries should be GPLed. He is just saying that not all libraries should necessarily be LGPLed.
- He's not saying that libraries with proprietary or unrestricted equivalents should be GPLed. This is explicitely given as an example of why you should use the LGPL.
- He's not asking people to change the licenses of existing GNU/Linux GPLed libraries. (A little thought reveals that most such libraries fall under the above reasoning; in addition, trying to change the license would just result in a fork.)
- He's not forcing anyone to use the GPL for their libraries (and couldn't even if he wanted to). He just wrote an essay saying why he thinks it might be a good idea in some cases.
- This is not a change of policy; the FSF has said all along that the LGPL was designed for certain libraries, not all libraries (e.g. readline).
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
whoops...see corrected post below (Score:1)
by stevenj (stevenj@mit.edu) on Monday February 01, @07:30PM
(User Info) http://web.mit.edu/stevenj/mosaic/steven.html
|
Sorry, I pressed "submit" instead of "preview" and apparently I didn't hit the stop button quickly enough. Please see my corrected post below instead of this one.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Can people read?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:50PM
|
Finally, someone who actually *read* and
*comprehended* the article posts something
that is reasonable (as opposed to half-cocked
reactionary drivel).
Everybody: Go read the article again, then read
the post this is in reply to, then repeat...
And keep you pants on, for crying out loud!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Bigger and stronger.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:02PM
|
Your little "in some cases" quip minimizes RMS's statement to make your personal point. RMS says LGPL is only okay if it overlaps commercial software. No, RMS cannot force all software to use GPL, but that's what he wants. That why we are discussing this, because we need to decide if that's what we want, if it's really a good idea or not. While RMS specifically maintains that not all LGPL software should be GPL, he would be perfectly happy if it was. He says LGPL software can stay that way if it offers no competative advantage to commercial software. A fully GPL world is one in which commercial software cannot compete, and that makes RMS happy. But, commerical software does have advantages -- it can do things open source cannot. I want to live in a world that has both. Variety is a necessary ingredient for evolution. I choose not to label software "better" on the sole basis that it was developed under a model that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Some people disagree. Call me crazy, but I want something that is better because it is bigger and stronger. And, we'll get the biggest and the strongest if we have the greatest number of choices. So, yes, I directly disagree with RMS's position. The reality is, I don't want to live in the world RMS proposes to create.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
You may very well be on crack, my friend.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:57PM
|
RMS cannot force all software to use GPL, but that's what he wants.
If you mean that he wants to force people, then you're wrong. He does not want to force anything on anybody, aside from maybe enforcing the terms of his licenses on his own products -- but then again, you can hardly blame him for that. It's not odd, weird, nor extremist to want to decide how one's work is used.
While RMS specifically maintains that not all LGPL software should be GPL, he would be perfectly happy if it was.
So? I'd be perfectly happy if a lotta like, you know, real hot babes wanted to jump my bones, but I am not gonna force anybody! We all want all kinda things. Surely RMS does want everyone to use the GPL, but so what? We can all want what we like, as long as we don't violate anybody's rights in trying to get it. He's not violating anybody's rights, he's just trying to persuade people (mostly) and being a royal f*cking loudmouth pain in the ass (occasionally), but it's just noise and we all have a right to make noise. It happens that most of his noise is extremely well put together and well thought out; I actually like the man's prose, and believe me, that's not an everyday thing with me and programmers. The last programmer whose prose I liked was Brian Kernighan; the one before that? Uh . . . there wasn't one.
Anyhow, if RMS has a right to shoot his mouth off, of course you have an equal right to shoot yours off, as have I to shoot mine, etc. etc. etc. I do feel that you're being unfair there, but there's room to disagree.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Embrace and Extend
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @07:22PM
|
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage... It seems undebatable that the primary goal this position is to completely replace commericial software with open source software. Sadly, this goal undesirably embraces aspects of the perceived model of commericial software. Specifically, that open source development should force the exclusive use of open source software. The perceived silver lining is that open source extends the model to redistribute the source code. "Embrace and Extend" is an underhanded model used by Microsoft, the embodiment of proprietary, closed source software. The open source community strongly looks down on Microsoft for using that model. RMS so badly wants to compete with propreitary software that he proposes that we assume the very same position. Let open source be free, even to those that would shakle it. We can rise above their way of thinking. RMS says we cannot. CSS, cssharp@iname.com
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Can people read? (Score:1)
by stevenj (stevenj@mit.edu) on Monday February 01, @07:27PM
(User Info) http://web.mit.edu/stevenj/mosaic/steven.html
|
Sigh...I'm seeing a lot of overreactions by people who are jumping to conclusions. Reality check: - RMS is not saying that all free libraries should be GPLed. He is just saying that not all libraries should necessarily be LGPLed.
- He's not saying that libraries with proprietary or unrestricted equivalents should be GPLed. This is explicitly given as an example of why you should use the LGPL.
- He's not asking people to change the licenses of existing GNU/Linux LGPLed libraries. (A little thought reveals that most such libraries fall under the above reasoning; in addition, trying to change the license would just result in a fork. The title of the essay says "your next library.")
- He's not forcing anyone to use the GPL for their libraries (and couldn't even if he wanted to). He just wrote an essay saying why he thinks it might be a good idea in some cases.
- This is not a change of policy; the FSF has said all along that the LGPL was designed for certain libraries, not all libraries (e.g. readline).
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Big Mistake (Score:1)
by Monkius on Monday February 01, @07:41PM
(User Info) |
Countless times over the past two years, I have defended the use of the GPL for core system components like Linux.
Reason: Putting Linux under the GPL puts the OS truly into the category of the public good, and helps to ensure improvements will continue to benefit every user of the system. I gladly contribute code even to seemingly out of the way code like Binutils (objdump).
OTOH, countless times this year I have protested that in spite of RMS's objectives, the open source movement will not support the definition of system interfaces under any license which infringes on the intellectual property rights of software developers using Linux, HURD, or whatever comes next.
Reason: To do so will destroy the momentum of the Linux system, maybe even Linux itself. Why? Because the present success of Linux is due PRECISELY to the fact that Linux is a best-of-breed, hybrid-license platform that meets the needs of free AND commercial software developers--profiting both, and profiting consumers and users, at the expense of greedy companies trying to lock users into proprietary protocols and formats.
As at least one poster has already observed, Richard Stallman is trying to make commercial software non-viable on free operating systems, using free software libraries, and the like. I don't think RMS is unaware that this would, indeed destroy Linux as a platform. Fact is, he doesn't like "Linux"--maybe thinks it is really the property of the FSF, as "GNU/Linux." His world-domination strategies--unlike Linus' good-natured joke--seem like selfishness and self-aggrandizement, disguised as generous idealism.
Everyone in the Linux and open source communities owes RMS a great debt, for the wonderful work that has been done on libc, GCC, emacs, and the numerous FSF projects that add value to all free and commercial platforms, to all our benefit.
However, we owe it to ourselves not to destroy the best hope of computer users and developers worldwide, for a free, open, best-of-breed UNIX system--one that wins on its own terms, in commercial and non-commercial settings.
Free software and commercial software--and the developers that make both, often the very same people, in fact--CAN co-exist. Fact is, the already do, the the many mixed-license projects based on Linux and *BSD point the way for a better future for all of us in the software industry.
Matt |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
One fundamental flaw... (Score:1)
by Vidar Hokstad (v@ncg.net) on Monday February 01, @07:41PM
(User Info) http://linux.ncg.net/
|
| There's at least one fundamental flaw in this logic... RMS implicitly asserts that the GPL is the only worthy free/open/insert-favorite-buzzword-here license. You may want to allow users of other Open Source licenses to link with the library as well, and then the GPL is simply not suitable in most cases, because it's incompatible with most other licenses out there.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
A *serious* one, too-- for OSS itself
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:00PM
|
What I hope everyone will remember is that the GPL is, as far as free software licenses go, at one end of a very wide spectrum-- something like...
GPL---MozPL---NPL---BSD---PublicDomain (is that about right?)
NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE GPL. Many people think it goes too far. I (for one) think it is a bit extreme, but realize there are times for it. e.g. we can sleep well knowing Billy Boy won't grab Linux kernel goodies to sprig up Windoze, like he did with the *BSD TCP/IP stack (at least if anyone finds out, he's in for a baaaad day). And of course, if people want to release GPL'ed apps, more power to 'em.
But you run into big, biiiig problems if you start GPL'ing the libraries. Say I'm a pretty happy guy, and I don't mind if companies grab my code and roll it into their own ProprietaryWare(tm) products. Okay. So I release my work under the BSD license. I can do this, and distribute binaries too, 'cause the LGPL is all nice and permissive about this.
But if the library is GPL (and my understanding of its terms is correct), I will be prohibited from distributing binaries (licenses are incompatible) and, IIRC, even source code for both lib + app in the same package! (did I get that right?) With the net result that I, as a supporter of free software (even freer than the GNU sense of it) cannot provide potential users an important service (precompiled binaries). And what purpose will this restriction serve, aside from cooling enthusiasm for the Movement?
RMS says he is taking a swipe at companies, but in effect he is striking out at anything that does not already fall under the GNU GPL. And that comprises a large portion of the free software movement itself.
I don't see anything wrong with the system as it is. OSS is doing just fine. Let it benefit from those who do not share RMS's hard-core position.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
A *serious* one, too-- for OSS itself
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:27PM
|
" I will be prohibited from distributing binaries (licenses are incompatible) and, IIRC, even source code for both lib + app in the same package! (did I get that right?)"
No, as the author of the software you have 100% control. The license only limits those using your software, not the author.
You can release the same piece of software under 3 completely incompatible licenses if you want.
For example, you can release some GPLd code, but some company wants to use that in their close software they can come to you, and if you want, you can negoitate a special license for them. You don't have to tell anybody you did it, you are the author you have 100% control over your code.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Politics Over Utility (Score:1)
by Greg Newton (gregnewton(at)netscape.net) on Monday February 01, @08:00PM
(User Info) |
This is really dangerous for people who want a system that is a get-work-done system. If an key library gets released under GPL then it will effectively block the use and development of commercial software under free OS's. You will also not be able to use a GPL'd library and a closed source library in the same application. A lot of software is not going to exist if it is left up to open surce developers. Commercial software has a role and a balance is important. Open source software that helps most users and commercial software for specialised tasks. This will only replace one bad thing with another.
Releasing GPL'd libraries will make politians with fascist overtones happy but not end users and developers. I don't care for politics anymore, I just want a useful system. I can't see this helping my goals. Open source does a lot for me. This idea doesn't.
Despite RMS's instance that it be called GNU linux, linux and BSD and co., don't belong to GNU or RMS. We don't have to have anything to do with this anti-social political nonsense. Boycott this nonsense. It is time we drafted our own general purpose, practically oriented public liscence and minimised connection with RMS/FSF. To many people just release stuff under the GPL without thinking about what they are doing (or even reading the thing). Make sure you very carefully consider what you are doing here.
RMS and friends have been trying to redefine "free" to the point where liscences like povray's are blasted for not being free, yet the GPL is at times quite restrictive as well and can't really be considered free. These restrictions can be a pain at times. The LGPL provides an escape from those difficulties.
---- Backwards compatible -- If it's not backwards it's not compatible |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
RMS rulez! Lots of Microsoft trolls on ./ (Score:1)
by vleo on Monday February 01, @08:01PM
(User Info) |
The only thing I ever got paid for in my
life is writing code. Same as RMS :-) So,
go away all you teen-age (and older) greedy
stupid wanna be Bill Gates morons! And don't
get it wrong - RMS is not starving (nor do I).
Peace (and f*ck you trolls!)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
GPL is coercive, fascist...there is better
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:19PM
|
I agree with the people who think RMS is getting extreme. All this is done under his brand of freedom...I think freedom should be be freedom to do whatever the hell you want with it. I like the crack.com license that came with the releases of Golgotha and Abuse src. To me that is true freedom. I don't need RMS tying my hands behind my back. I wish people would look at other licenses out there (BSD, Aladdin, Crack.com). Many people just involuntarily stamp their work with GPL without really thinking about it.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Freedom: Don't like it? Don't use it.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:34PM
|
BBLLLELEAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you mutterers annoy me.
write your own compiler and your own libraries, howzat?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Fight The Power!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:39PM
|
Restrictions suck, don't believe the "free" double-talk... Open Source is the higher ideal, not the us vs. them of the GPL. Promote OSS and let programmers decide the GPL/MIT/MPL issue.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Protected LGPL license?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @08:36PM
|
I like the LGPL. I want to use it, and I want to
prevent conversion to the GPL. How can I do that?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Protected LGPL license? (Score:1)
by Bill Currie (bill@taniwha.tssc.co.nz) on Monday February 01, @09:34PM
(User Info) |
It never will be converted. The only change is Library->Lesser in the name. That's *it*.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
One little project this could SCREW UP (Score:1)
by danby on Monday February 01, @08:39PM
(User Info) http://
|
My company writes software for telephone companies. Our market is tiny, and very sophisticated. If we give them code, they _will_ steal it, and we would have NOTHING to sell. Period. We could try suing for copyright infringement, but we would run out of lawyer's fees long before they do. I am working get the company to move our platform to Linux. If a PHB gets the slightest hint that our intellectual property is in danger, that's the end. Forever.
I would love to move to a stable and truly functional UNIX equivalent, but that isn't my decision. We are willing to pay good money for distros, and support, but we cannot infect our code with a license virus like the GPL in libraries. Small software houses like ours are a huge part of this industry, and we are the ISVs that will make or break an OS.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
One little project this could SCREW UP
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:18PM
|
So don't link against a GPL library, just use the LGPL libraries or write your own. How hard is that?
RMS isn't advocating a 100% GPL universe, go read his message
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
One little project this could SCREW UP
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @01:06AM
|
If RMS is successful in this push to have Libraries fall under the GPL I will have no choice but to avoid the use of Linux for software development. The availability of a number of libraries for various purposes is part of what makes the platform of interest. It allows for much cheaper software development and much cheaper commercial software. Yes, commercial. Not having the libraries available means projects get dropped because the development work is doubled or trippled, or worse. Worse is that similar libraries, or functionality is easier achived on an alternative platform without writing the library from scratch. So, Linux 0 Alternatives 1. Open Source, GPL, BSD License, etc are complicated issues. But trying to apply GPL to a library is actually what I would call greedy.
The original concept was undertaken by him in good measure and under an appropriate amount of thought. With the progression towards commercial software from major players Linux could make a serious step forward over the next couple of years. This would be a good thing for all concered.
I freely support the right of any author, of a library, or program to put in criteria they deam appropriate.
If a library is an insignificant part of a particular program it should not as a matter of course hold license over how the resulting software is released. If the library *IS* a significant amount of the program then the reality is the program is significantly free *ANYWAY*.
I suppose as well it should not matter that the library may be dynamicly linked, as as such the library doesn't exist in the program at all.
There is a large difference between taking advantage of a library, free or otherwise and taking advantage of a program and its source code.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
R.T.F.L. !!!!! R.T.F.L. !!!!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @09:23PM
|
Read The 'Free'kin Licence.
Read it, think about it, discuss it and
understand it. Then decide for YOURSELF. Don't just flap your gums, say something interesting.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Crrrrrrackdot!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01, @10:22PM
|
Read . . . Read . . . Don't just flap your gums, say something interesting.
Do you have any idea where you just posted that nonsense? This is Crackdot! Nobody reads shit! Gum-flapping is the name of the game!
Let a thousand gums flap in contention! Flap, dear gums, flap! Flap, flap flap!
CRRRRRRRRRRRRACKDOT!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Why Cooperation with RMS is Impossible (Score:1)
by Stardate on Monday February 01, @10:19PM
(User Info) http://www.walrus.com/~stardate
|
Well maybe not, but I think this file is damned funny.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
I respect RMS, but LGPL is needed (Score:1)
by Bill Henning (bhenning@cpureview.com) on Tuesday February 02, @12:42AM
(User Info) http://www.cpureview.com
|
I respect RMS's opinion, and his argument makes a lot of sense - unfortunately if too many libraries are GPL'd, it will restrict the ability of commercial software vendors to quickly port to Linux, and increase memory utilization (by needing to load both a GPL'd and non-GPL'd library at the same time, or worse, many statically compiled binaries).
I like the LGPL for libraries.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
is free software inherently good
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @12:48AM
|
i enjoy, use, and aspire to contribute to free software, and in general take rms' word as gospel, but on this issue i am in difference of opinion, and the difference revolves around what is good about software being free.
without going into great detail, to me the importance of free software is not the code itself, but the freedom that that code allows the people using it. a gpl'd program makes any consumer of the program a master of his own destiny. it enables the individual, placing him on the same level as a huge corporation.
as i see it, the advantage of the lgpl is that it provides the individual a chance to compete commercially, to individually write a good piece of code at low cost without the need for big corporate funding, and sell it. to me this is the best aspect of the human soul and the ideal capitalism that has never existed (the us is probably as far from pure capitalism as the ussr was from pure communism).
i know this goes against the ideal of the fsf, but i think it is important that each of us examines what is really important about free software - is it the code or the people that it frees.
the lgpl enables each person to provide as best he is able, and to be compensated for what he has provided without leveraging the work of others.
lytles@neaccess.net (new account, i haven't tested it yet)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
GPL instead of LGPL will cause harm
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @01:12AM
|
The company I work for uses many small
LGPL'd libraries to make its life easier and
to make the job of programming better. We're
active supporters of Linux and FreeBSD.
If you get rid of LGPL, and start calling for people to use GPL instead of LGPL for libraries, you will cause harm.
If people start GPL'ing libraries, I'll start
making my own and LGPL'ing them and telling
people not to use the GPL'd ones.
Who's going to get more mindshare? The LGPL'd ones.
LGPL for Libraries. GPL for apps.
Otherwise get your own license, and hop off the GNU bandwagon.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
RMS is an asshole
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @01:16AM
|
RMS is a complete asshole who is just jealous that Linux has done more than his pathetic hurd attempt ever will. He should just spare us all and stay at home playing with his DASD hat, butterfly and flute, and realise his way is not the only way.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This one could backfire.
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, @01:19AM
|
First, let me say that, in principle, I agree with RMS. However, this argument ignores at least one real-world consideration that could, indeed already has, led to avoidance of an otherwise desirable GNU library.
In the real worls of business, companies must be able to compete. Anything which my company does that gives me even a slight competitive advantage is something that I am not about to give away so that my competitors can use it. I simply can't take that risk. However, if I can gain a reward for making that thing available to my competitors, and the reward is big enough, I may just be willing to part with that advantage, in return for money. The result is that incidental software,
instead of staying closely held, gets propogated. Once the competitive advantage of that software is gone (either I have sold it to my competitors or the business has changed and diminished its worth), then I am free to contribute that work to the world, without shortchanging the owners (private or stockholders) of the company.
I can tell you that, though I have contributed to free software, and use it, I am very unlikely to write an application at work using a GPL'd library.
Generally, there is more than one way to do an application, so that libraries such as Readline
and libgdbm cannot be used to force me to write free software. In some ways, the effort to
place libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is nothing more than a different kind of tyranny; one which I find quite nearly as unacceptable as the tyranny of proprietary software.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
Posted by Justin on Monday February 01, @05:24PM
RMS: GPL vs. LGPL
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.