Besides: You voice fear of things which never actually happened. Proving my point that business is missing the opportunities of GPL.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Yes, they could. But they could not provide the service which comes with the licence. So who would buy? If you don't want / need the service you could just as well you the gratis version which comes with the main gcc distribution.
... and you see you don't need to tell the customers not to redistribute. If they just paid € 50'000 in licence fees they won't make the code available to there competitors for free.
The GPL is very "business-friendly" — it is just business being to afraid to actually see it's potential.
PS: GNAT Pro is a gcc based commercial compiler for Ada. There is a gratis version for non commercial use as well.
I think the plan is to display an empty page to anyone who uses ad-blocker. Watch our ads or watch nothing at all. Could come. Will come.
Has there even been a full featured PL/1 with all optional features in place? I don't think so. And most C / C++ are not full featured either.
... will appreciate readable programming languages. Only pseudo competent programmes too full of them self to see there own weaknesses want to use unreadable languages. And those pseudo competent programmes are an even bigger disaster then then JAVA/.NET generation because they brought us all the buffer overruns malware uses to attack our computers.
BTW: Java is not all that readable either.
Congratulations to having a very intelligent wife.
I have been saying that for years: If you know how to lie you get laid.
The fundamental question is: Can the truth be sexism?
The fact, which political correctness advocates don't like to hear about, is that both sexes have fundamental behaviour patterns bred into them in the approx. 80'000 years the human race exists.
So is it sexism to speak about those?
And yes, there are exceptions. Just as there are men who like to date men, women who like to date women, men who like to where women clothing, women who
Anyway: they are just that: exceptions.
You really think that works? I sell Android Open Source by the GPL rules: legitimate customers can request the source code — but nobody ever does. I do mention it. It is not a hidden secrete. Still no one is interested.
And on the other side I don't expect donation to flow in if I used that site. Once the average user has his App he is not interested either in source or donations.
I for one continue to use the GPL allowance to sell the binary and only give away bare source for fee.
"The laws aren't there to uphold social norms"
That is exactly the reason the laws exist.
That is the theory you are talking about. But the girlintraining was talking about what happens in real live. Very different things.
It is not even close or similar.
In general most of what you are looking for goes against the spirit of OO and Java.
More the spirit of Java. I have worked with other OO languages which did a better job of it. Either by not having primitives in the first place (true OO) or having more thought out concept of primitives (hybrid OO).
So maybe the problem arise by Java trying to be pure OO but still having primitives. Which a pure OO language should not have.
Most of this I think goes back to me not really seeing "primitive" as mattering much once you aren't going for mimicking the CPU anyway.
Good point. But then you should not have primitives outside a java.jni package anyway. Just like Smalltalk or Scala. That would then be truly OO.