Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 4, Insightful) 296

Great, so it was just announced and it already needs to be re-engineered independently

You're getting it for free, with conditions. Conditions that you (or someone else) can work around. If you don't like the conditions, go create your own format.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Freedom is a nice thing, and the GPL gives it to you, provided you don't prevent others from enjoying the same freedom you get from the GPL.

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 2) 296

Covering the reference implementation means that no one will even seriously evaluate it. Of the major browsers:

  • Internet explorer (and the new one is called) is proprietary, no GPLv3 code linking allowed.
  • The WebKit underpinnings of Safari are LGPLv2 (not GPLv3 compatible), so even if Apple (which has a corporate policy not to permit GPLv3 code in the door) wanted to adopt it, they can't.
  • Chrome has the same issue with regard to LGPLv2 in WebKit.
  • Firefox is triple licensed, and I think one of the licenses may be GPLv3 compatible, but probably not.

All of this is irrelevant once someone releases a non-GPL library that supports the format. And internal evaluations can be done with the GPL implementation, while an adopter waits for (or develops independently) a non-GPL implementation.

If you can't ship a beta of the browser that supports it, then how do you do things like compare things like page loading time, bandwidth usage, and so on? Doing an open source release under a license that says 'you can't use this code, and if you want to implement this spec then you'd better make sure that you didn't look at our code' strikes me as taking the piss.

Nothing is stopping you from looking at the GPL code to see how it works, and then writing your own implementation. You just can't copy-paste the code verbatim.

Comment Re: GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 296

That doesn't require GPL3. GPL2, BSD, MPL... lots of OSS licenses exist with the same abilities for users. Obviously GPL3's purpose must be more than that.

It is. The main difference between the GPL and other licenses is that GPL does not let anyone take away freedoms provided by the GPL. For example, one cannot hide modifications to GPL code, or stop someone from modifying GPL code on which a program depends.

Comment Re:Oh God (Score 0) 268

An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will.

Not at all. An omniscient God can choose where and when to employ His power. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but you have to admit it's true, if in fact there is an omniscient God.

So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.

Listen, I'm not a bible zealot. If anything, I'm inclined to agnosticism. But if you google "evidence of free will in the bible" you will find what I'm talking about.

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_