Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Today I was introduced to a product called RuggedNMS that is obviously a rebranded version of our own project. I can find no mention of OpenNMS let alone GPL licensing. Do I have a right to be angry when I see a company that looks like they are exploiting our work? I give my work freely to the community. The OpenNMS community's vitality is very important to me. I can imagine some within our community feeling betrayed if someone takes our work, does not contribute back, and no longer distributes it freely.
I talked with one of the OpenNMS admins, Tarus Balog, who blogged about the situation, and he stated that while at this time they might be in violation of the license, it will take some effort to know for sure.
I want to ask: while there is the letter of the law concerning a software license that must be obeyed, has anyone formalized the etiquette around when someone wants to use an open source project inside a commercial one? Has anyone working on a project been approached by a company saying "hey, heads up, we love what you're doing and plan to use it in our software"?
I think I would feel less angry if RuggedCom had contacted the community and let us know what they were planning to do with OpenNMS. If they were very open about it and demonstrated some knowledge of the GPL, I wouldn't be sitting here thinking the worst."
One thing is for sure. He's a jerk. Let him do it and let the market forces play. Assuming those courses are taught by at least one other professor, word will get out and students will flock to the other(s). Unless there's something else that offsets the jerk factor.
Although I can't say he's doing anything wrong, per se, his attitude shows that he really doesn't get his profession, and that's a sad thing. Many students don't learn by going to class, they learn by absorbing and using the information taught. If you don't provide enough material for students to learn the basics on their own even if they miss class or fall asleep in class, (at least in the form of a decent recommended textbook) then you are failing your mission. If you believe for one minute that students learn more by frantically scribbling down useless notes that will be inconsistent, incomplete, illegible, and cause the student to miss out on the opportunity to digest and understand what the teacher is saying in class, then you are sorely deluded. I have learned far more in math/physics classes where I didn't have to take notes (because the teacher's provided notes or the book were sufficient). As a sophomore I noticed this effect and vowed not to become a slave to notes. I keep a notepad handy for the occasional gem or logistics, but I read the material (novel idea, I know) and go to class prepared, and then PAY ATTENTION. It's amazing how much more you learn when you're paying attention than when you're frantically scribbling whatever words are floating through the air.
PhD Student, 3.7 GPA
They distinctly are forcing a specific type of content to different parts of the world. You'll note that in region 0 (including USA) always includes the most graphic violence/sex/etc that these customers are trying to avoid. They are technologically blocked from avoiding it, and even accessing already published content. When a company tries offering exactly that service, they are sued out of existence.
In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.