Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:v2? why not v3? (Score 1) 218

In order to install the files onto a customer's machine, I have to copy the files onto their machine, and so yes, I am distributing it. If I install both Moodle, and Microsoft's plugin, then I am distributing them as a combined work.

If you want to assume that Microsoft won't sue you, then that's up to you. Companies usually do not have the luxury of saying "oh, let's just cross our fingers and hope they don't sue". Companies have to play it safe. Besides, it's not just Microsoft who can sue, but also any of the many copyright holders of Moodle, plus any of the authors of the additional plugins that I happen to also install on the customer's machine.

Comment Re:v2? why not v3? (Score 1) 218

Yes, well, the problem is that there are people who would want to distribute Moodle along with a set of plugins. Aside from the fact that this plugin can never, say, make it into any Linux distribution, there are many companies that do Moodle support, installation, etc. The licensing issue would make this a non-starter for them. So yes, it is an issue.

Comment Re:v2? why not v3? (Score 1) 218

In fact, it would be stupid on their part to release source code to work with programs under incompatible license terms which would disallow anyone from legitimately being able to distribute it.

And yet, that's exactly what Microsoft did. Moodle is switching to GPLv3, and Microsoft's plugin is GPLv2 only.

Comment Re:Not contribution; use (Score 3, Informative) 218

Actually, the original software (Moodle) is moving to GPLv3, while Microsoft has released their plugin under GPLv2 only which makes it impossible for anyone to legally distribute Moodle with Microsoft's plugin. Not only that, but Moodle had previously be licensed under GPLv2 or later, so using a GPLv3 plugin was always fine. So it would have been better if Microsoft had used GPLv3 instead.

Comment Re:So what next? (Score 5, Informative) 522

This is known as hashcash. One big reason that it doesn't work on the web is that, currently, users will be stuck with some slow JavaScript version of the algorithm, while a sufficiently determined spammer can use a fast C version, and end up with much less work required to post. So it's nearly impossible to set a cost that is cheap enough for valid visitors, that will be a sufficient deterrent against spammers.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 1127

Good point, but the other side to it is that if we go back to the idea that if you don't like it you can fix it. Whereas the coding can be a heavy time investment, hiring developers can be a heavy financial investment, perhaps costing even more than buying a proprietary program to do the same thing.

Agreed, as long as there is a proprietary program that does what you want it to (or close enough to what you want). ;)

With the industry that I work in, the proprietary solution is very expensive, and the FOSS solution does 90% of what people want, and custom development is fairly easy.

Modifying OpenOffice.org or Cinelerra is probably a much harder task.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...