Slashdot Mirror

What I find confusing is the list of incompatible licenses.http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list. html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

I understand why the licenses are incompatible, but I don't understand when it's an issue. Since they are listed as incompatible, does it mean I can't use code licensed under them and gpl my application? For example, if I write an application and use xerces (apache license), can I gpl my program? If so, what is the incompatibility list about? Note that my intent is not to re-license xerces under the GPL, but to license my code that uses xerces under the GPL.

What do you think would happen if SCO was found out to have violated the GPL? The kernel Linux is, after all, under GPL.

SCO has never once said anything against the GNU, ...

Of course SCO is very careful here, or they risk having a legal conflict with FSF. Perhaps SCO is hoping that by "taking care of" the Linux kernel, their litigation might be extended to GNU. After all, at GNU's Not Unix! we find the following written :

Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used.

Currently lists over 2300 packages, located right over here, and thankfully has a good search engine, because the "categories" aren't that helpful to me. (YMMV)

The article author didn't say anything about which OSes were being used, so *shrug*.

How can a voluntarily adopted license "force" anybody? As you say, you just have to reject the use of GPLed software if you don't like it. And remember that the GPL must only be accepted if you redistribute another's program, not just if you use it. A programmer should be aware of the terms in which the code she relies upon is licensed, right?

The whole point of the GPL is to build a community of people freely sharing code and donating it to each other. The license is tuned and tweaked to do just that, and do it really well.

If someone want to use the GPL for a different purpose (like, say, earning some money), hey, the code it's free! They can do it, but they should be very aware that the license is not intended to do that. So, it's not the FSF fault if they got it wrong, as their goals are cristal clear.

One issue is essentially with the ability of authors to define "invariant sections" of their documents, the subsequent modification of which would violate the GFDL. This conflicts with the requirement of the DFSG that licensing must allow modifications, and must permit the modifications to be distributed under the same licensing terms as the original, as e.g. the GPL does.

Other people have raised the concern that the GFDL's restrictions on the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" -- a restriction that, on the surface, makes sense in that it prevents attempts to limit the freedom others have to read the distributed copies -- could have the unintended consequence of forbidding putting documents covered by the GFDL on devices which are encrypted for personal security.

I'm curious whether FSF folks speaking about licenses plan to discuss this at the seminar(s).

But a library is different, because the FSF considers any form of linkage to be derivation.

What is the basis for your claim?

The GPL is viral because its common interpretation, including the interpretation of the FSF, goes beyond copyright law and effects regulations on non-derivative works.

The GPL says that the definition of a derivative work is exactly what copyright law does. Look at GPL section 0: ... a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it ...

Now, this does bring up an interesting point.
In US law, short-term violations of copyright for purposes of normal use of a work are legal (this enables you, for example, to copy a program from your hard drive into RAM for execution without needing a separate license from the publisher. One reason you're free to ignore shrinkwrap EULAs). That means that dynamically linking a library is not a copyright violation, although it does temporarily create a derived work.

In Britain, however, "incidental copying as necessary to normally access a work" is not protected by fair use. There, to dynamically link code together would be a copyright violation, and you'd need permission from each author to accomplish it.

Ironically, if US law changes to make EULAs binding, then the GPL (version 3) would be able to firmly prevent people from dynamically linking to libraries. Without such a change, it'll have no way to "reach beyond copyright law" (as you put it), since it's power is based only on copyright.

The GPL is a tool to make YOUR software free, not someone else's software. It's not designed to "destroy copyright from within". If you think so, you are a retarded assmonkey who needs to shut up and read what Richard Stallman has to say about the goals of the FSF and the GPL.

It is intended to make all software free. That is the goal of the FSF and the GPL. Eric Raymond of the Open Source Initiative takes a more moderate view, and explains that some categories of software should not be free... but that's not the GPL's goal.

By use of the GPL, RMS hoped to make all software Free by providing quality GPL code as an incentive for new programs to be GPLed too. Otherwise, they'd be missing out on many cheaply available features. The idea was that GPL use would snowball- at some point, when the preponderance of useful libraries are GPLed, then creating a non-GPL program that can't use them would be an exercise in futile money-wasting.

RMS doesn't like the LGPL for this reason- he does not want people to be able to link to Free libraries without Freeing up their code. That's why he renamed it from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL"- to emphasize disapproval.

The word "viral" to describe the GPL is of course incorrect- unless one also agrees that the copyright system is viral itself (according to the legal definition of a derived work, which are "infected" with the copyright of the previous author).

The GPL is a tool to make YOUR software free, not someone else's software.

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

The GPL doesn't require the distributor to promise that modifications are runnable.

Doesn't the GNU GPL's guarantee of installation scripts imply that the author has to provide a way to run modified binaries? Here's the relevant excerpt from section 3 of the GNU GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

The definition of "installation" on a computing device that stores programs on removable read-only media may pose an obstacle to adoption of GNU licenses for console game engines.

which is certainly possible -- many parts are quite vague

I agree that many parts of the GPL/LGPL are too vague. Reading through the FAQs there are segments where the people explaining the license admit uncertainty as to what exactly it means and what they are allowing and disallowing. A prime example of this is in the Mere Aggregation section of the FAQ where there's a nice little quote, "What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.". This portion of the FAQ does give some examples and rough guidelines but ultimately it seems to abdicate the actual decision. We're left with an ambiguous interpretation of an ambiguous license.

We're developers here, we live and die by detailed specifications. We bitch and moan when we don't get them. Why do we permit this level of ambiguity?

Hmmm the reverse is true according to this.

How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software obsolete.

If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.

I always thought he was encouraging software to be free

You "thought"? I "thought" you were telling people to "shut up" and go "read what Richard Stallman has to say". You "thought"?

Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'.

Indeed, that's what I'd say. But people (perhaps like you) have somehow taken that and extended it to software, for some weird reason. BTW, although attributed to RMS, that quote is actually from Stewart Brand, who was one of the founders of the EFF.

How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?

Read my post again. Slowly.

I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him

Boy, you are a confused little one, aren't you? So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.

I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters

Yes, I think that's a fairly accurate assesment.

How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software obsolete.

If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.

I always thought he was encouraging software to be free

You "thought"? I "thought" you were telling people to "shut up" and go "read what Richard Stallman has to say". You "thought"?

Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'.

Indeed, that's what I'd say. But people (perhaps like you) have somehow taken that and extended it to software, for some weird reason. BTW, although attributed to RMS, that quote is actually from Stewart Brand, who was one of the founders of the EFF.

How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?

Read my post again. Slowly.

I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him

Boy, you are a confused little one, aren't you? So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.

I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters

Yes, I think that's a fairly accurate assesment.

Some of what the other posters have mentioned, I agree with -- That the decrees of those who have written the license no longer matter as far as what it 'means'. That it is for the courts to decide, and programmers to interpret how -they- think the court would interpret it when they decide whether to use a license or not.

That said, I could not find the line of thought that led Dave Turner to think that LGPL does not allow Java libraries to remain seperate (viral? parasitic?). Here is my reasoning to think otherwise, as a Java Programmer.

Remember, from section 0 of the LGPL :
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a program using the Library is not restricted..."
We're only concerned here with what we have to/are allowed to [not] distribute and what and when we are allowed to modify.

Here's a mild stretch, but something to consider from section 2.d)
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
A Java JAR file is essentially a ZIP file -- this could be argued to be merely a form of digital distribution medium, designed to save hardware space and costs. Thus when we distribute the JAR file including the LGPL'd library, it is no more that if we were emailing a zip, rar, or installshield including our program and LGPL'd DLL or .so's.

Section 5 (The particularly relvant one):
"A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."
A Java program is run by invoking the java runtime on a class with a 'main' function. The only thing non-modular at that point is the class itself. All other classes can be rewritten, replaced, modified, etc, without changing the base 'executable' of the original class. Thus, all code (classes) not having anything to do with the LGPL'd code remain 'in isolation' and fall outside the scope of the LGPL.

More from Section 5:
"However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library ... , rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."
Key note here: Section 6 states terms for DISTRIBUTION of such executables.
Given that java doesn't create the action 'executable' until you actually attempt to run the program (until then, all compiled classes are object code), noone is ever 'distributing' a java executable. It is interpreted/linked/created/run on the user's machine. Thus, as far as distribution is concerned, we are never distributing an 'executable' containing the LGPL'd library, so section 6 never even applies to Java. At any point in the distribution, the library can be retrieved and replaced from the distributed files.

With regard to actual usage of the library in your own code, we look again at section 5:
"If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions... , then the use of the object file is unrestricted"
Using Java objects is not much different than using C++ objects. You are merely using the accessors, data structures, etc provided by the 'include' files. The 'import' command is typically interpreted as the analog to C/C++'s '#include'. Java simply does not separate the header from the object code. It is similarly possible to write some or all code in a C++ class in the

You have a choice. The [L]GPL is not a little bug trying to worm its way into your code. If you chose to use GPL code, then you follow the terms, or don't use the code. It's simple.

You seem to miss the entire point of the LGPL. The whole point is that you should be able to use LGPL code in a non-LGPL project. To quote from the website:

"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."

So whereas the GPL is intended to be somewhat "viral" -- i.e. software using GPL code must also be GPL -- the LGPL is not supposed to. This is why the viral-ness of the LGPL is news, since it's contrary to much of the community's understanding and intent regarding the use of LGPL code.

Cheers,
IT

If you are really serious about free software. Then you will never use the LGPL.

I have had physical relations with other humans and even *I* know what this is. It's the GNU Lesser General Public Licnese...

You can read about here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go back to my mundane life of co-mingling with other humans...

Oh and they're female in case you're wondering...

Sharks and some other life forms haven't evolved* much in the last little while (although I assume with the presence of humans as predators, they are now). This is because they fit their niche perfectly. Most of the languages you mention, either do not fit their niche perfectly (as in the case of C++), have a rapidly changing niche (PHP), or don't really have a niche at all (Python). C, on the other hand, is nearly perfect for its purposes.

If you look at a list of the C99 features, they are either minor syntactic sugar (I know '//' comments will change my life) or issues with the standard library or preprocessor (both of which are far from perfect). Now contrast that with C++0x. The C language itself, as a form of portable assembler, cannot be significantly approved upon. Someday, maybe the rest of those languages will achieve such greatness, but I doubt it.

* By "evolved" I mean "experienced genus-wide change due to natural selection".

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^HPerl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

However, this has caused friction with the Debian community, because they feel that the fact that the GNU Free Documentation License provides for Invariant Sections and mandatory Cover Texts makes it non-free. They're working on a policy statement to this effect, and getting ready to move all the GFDL'ed documentation from main to non-free. You can find out more about that in Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL.

I observed some of the debate between the Debian developers and RMS on the debian-legal list, and while there are other significant issues, the main sticking point seemed to come down to whether or not political activism had any place in technical documentation. You can imagine Stallman's position on that. I come from way before "Open Source" was ever heard of, so I personally share Stallman's position.

It's an issue for me because I have some articles which use the GFDL, so I discussed the issue at some length in Which License for Free Documentation? The followup discussion has been very helpful.

Now why is this relevant to music?

The issue of whether it is moral (from Stallman's perspective) to forbid alteration of a work I believe comes down to whether the work is primarily functional in nature, or expressive of a personal opinion. The obvious utility of software, and the ability to combine code from different packages into new programs tips the balance heavily towards the side that says one must allow software to be altered. But that's not so clear with writing, which may be either unexpressive technical documentation, or impassioned political expression.

Music is much more like writing than software. Someone who is not a musician might not see it this way, but I feel that my music is an expression of my opinion. I can well see that there is other music that could not possibly be considered that way, and so I would support Stallman's position that not only copying but modification of such music must be permitted.

However, I don't think Stallman has completely thought this through when considering music explicitly. Have a look at his piece Regarding Gnutella.

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

However, this has caused friction with the Debian community, because they feel that the fact that the GNU Free Documentation License provides for Invariant Sections and mandatory Cover Texts makes it non-free. They're working on a policy statement to this effect, and getting ready to move all the GFDL'ed documentation from main to non-free. You can find out more about that in Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL.

I observed some of the debate between the Debian developers and RMS on the debian-legal list, and while there are other significant issues, the main sticking point seemed to come down to whether or not political activism had any place in technical documentation. You can imagine Stallman's position on that. I come from way before "Open Source" was ever heard of, so I personally share Stallman's position.

It's an issue for me because I have some articles which use the GFDL, so I discussed the issue at some length in Which License for Free Documentation? The followup discussion has been very helpful.

Now why is this relevant to music?

The issue of whether it is moral (from Stallman's perspective) to forbid alteration of a work I believe comes down to whether the work is primarily functional in nature, or expressive of a personal opinion. The obvious utility of software, and the ability to combine code from different packages into new programs tips the balance heavily towards the side that says one must allow software to be altered. But that's not so clear with writing, which may be either unexpressive technical documentation, or impassioned political expression.

Music is much more like writing than software. Someone who is not a musician might not see it this way, but I feel that my music is an expression of my opinion. I can well see that there is other music that could not possibly be considered that way, and so I would support Stallman's position that not only copying but modification of such music must be permitted.

However, I don't think Stallman has completely thought this through when considering music explicitly. Have a look at his piece Regarding Gnutella.

Thanks for making them available, but I would be more impressed if you were offering Free downloads rather than free downloads.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

With the gcj dev's (very cool project, btw) working on a proper NIO implementation currently, there's hoping we'll have a proper implementation soon. And be able to run freenet entirely on free software again.

You can do a static compile of java into machine dependant bytecode using gcj if you are into that.

I do a lot of server side Java and I have never had a speed issue. Its much more likely to be a database issue that slows up the app than the execution of actual byte code. Remember that web/app servers ALWAYS top out on io before cpu anyway, so the fact that the Java server is running at, say, 40% cpu instead of 20% doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

I just have to poke at this hornet nest statement from the article...

"...Beyond that, I'm not at liberty to say..."

Not at liberty eh? Sounds like you need some free software. >:^}

What makes this an even better decision is that Explorer 6 (and updates) is available for free to anyone using Windows 95 or later. (Okay, Windows ME and Windows XP include Explorer 6 on install...). The point is that Microsoft would not lose any money by freeing up (free as in free speech, not free beer) software that is available at no cost anyway.

Good idea? Bad idea?

Bill?

As a copyright holder, I belive that this criminal conspiracy is illegally distributing my intellectual property in violation of the license.

How do I report this matter to the FBI? What steps can I take to ensure that the software pirate enjoys an extended stay in Federal prison?

Here is what you're looking for.

I know the consensus is that AOL sucks; mod me down if you must. Considering their contribution of a stupendous project like mozilla (funding, many full time Netscape developers, hosting, existing software, robust set of tools, all donated to make the best browser free software), I hope any good ideas they come out with increases the # of their subscribers.

A blogging feature not original, or particularly timely, but there is no time like the present. This is a great idea for AOL to add great value to their free AIM service (and AOL). I'd say most people have an intrinsic need to espouse their daily lives in a public setting. Current blogging offers require, at least, a smidgen of tech-know-how to find livejournal, download a client, or whatever. With AOL, the user only needs to know what a "Journal" is and have AIM/AOL installed; I believe the service will be quite popular.

i accompanied a young woman to Jamaica and visited a computer shop in Kingston, back in 1998. unlike some other trips, i was strangely unable to finish the log of this one, could be because the blunts were full force, driving on the left side of the road for the first time through the hills and avoiding the pedestrians (you think italian drivers are bad!) left me somewhat befuddled, and i was still very much a child, after all. (not to mention, things didn't work out w/ the woman.)

literary lameness aside, i was able to talk a bit to the computer shop guy (only one, quite fitting as there were no customers at that time of day) a little about free software and in the process learn about the nascent programming market in the region. there are many possibilities for localization and specialization as well as new avenues to pursue, some profitable in the monetary sense, others culturally. i fancied myself setting up shop there and hacking for GNU stoned all the time, but none of that panned out. maybe next life.

That would probably still sound better than the Free Software Song...

Check out GNU Stow for one simple implementation of this; also, see the appdir functionality in OS X, where all the resources an application needs (binaries, shared libs, pixmaps, etc.) are bundled into a single directory structure, which is made opaque at the Finder level. For Linux, the ROX Filer project is trying to do something similar, but also has the advantage of backwards-compatibility with traditional (i.e., '/usr/bin', '/usr/local/bin') installation paths.

Personally, I find the directory layout of most Linux systems to be painfully baroque, with the BSDs just a step behind. Both kick the crap out of Windows system layouts, esp. when it comes to quick configuration tweaks and the like, but the simple fact that you have to know how to do shell scripting to install applications for yourself only is rediculout IMHO. I can do it, but it'd be a lot easier for people I'm trying to get started on Linux to never have to worry about entering a password every time they want to install a new version of the Same Game.

If I understand this correctly, the owner of the source code has fully released it to the community, thereby making this 100% freeware, no conditions.

Then the copyright holder should have said this software is in the public domain. That would have meaning (as would licensing under the remarkably liberal new BSD and MIT X11 licenses). The term "freeware" has no legal meaning and is not a license, therefore it cannot be considered free software or open source. The FSF warns against using the word freeware to mean "free software". As things are, it is unclear exactly what the copyright holder(s) were trying to convey which means the software should be regarded as non-free and therefore it would be wise to avoid the software. Here's hoping the copyright holder(s) pick a free software license.

If I understand this correctly, the owner of the source code has fully released it to the community, thereby making this 100% freeware, no conditions.

Then the copyright holder should have said this software is in the public domain. That would have meaning (as would licensing under the remarkably liberal new BSD and MIT X11 licenses). The term "freeware" has no legal meaning and is not a license, therefore it cannot be considered free software or open source. The FSF warns against using the word freeware to mean "free software". As things are, it is unclear exactly what the copyright holder(s) were trying to convey which means the software should be regarded as non-free and therefore it would be wise to avoid the software. Here's hoping the copyright holder(s) pick a free software license.

[Greymatter...] is open source as well.

Their website makes this claim, but I do not believe it is true. They apparently changed the license for the software from something else to a Creative Commons license. The Open Source Initiative does not list the CC licenses on their approved license list (hence, Greymatter is not "open source") and CC licenses are not intended for software.

Until Greymatter chooses a Free Software license, I recommend steering clear of Greymatter. The Free Software movement stresses treating all users as equals. The Open Source Initiative has approved some licenses, including the Apple Public Source License, which do not treat all users equally.

[Greymatter...] is open source as well.

Their website makes this claim, but I do not believe it is true. They apparently changed the license for the software from something else to a Creative Commons license. The Open Source Initiative does not list the CC licenses on their approved license list (hence, Greymatter is not "open source") and CC licenses are not intended for software.

Until Greymatter chooses a Free Software license, I recommend steering clear of Greymatter. The Free Software movement stresses treating all users as equals. The Open Source Initiative has approved some licenses, including the Apple Public Source License, which do not treat all users equally.

Movable Type is non-free software and I suggest you avoid it entirely. Both of Movable Type's licenses (their personal non-commercial license and their commercial license prohibit distributing the software without written consent. There is also language that tries to restrict what you can do with the software (even though U.S. copyright law doesn't allow placing terms on merely executing the software) and claims agreement to its terms under a click-through agreement (which are not valid everywhere) or by merely installing or using the software.

I suggest one use or make Free Software instead. The FSF and the GNU Project publish information on which licenses are free. I suggest staying away from software licensed under the Creative Commons licenses. They are doing great work but their licenses are not intended for use with software.

Movable Type is non-free software and I suggest you avoid it entirely. Both of Movable Type's licenses (their personal non-commercial license and their commercial license prohibit distributing the software without written consent. There is also language that tries to restrict what you can do with the software (even though U.S. copyright law doesn't allow placing terms on merely executing the software) and claims agreement to its terms under a click-through agreement (which are not valid everywhere) or by merely installing or using the software.

I suggest one use or make Free Software instead. The FSF and the GNU Project publish information on which licenses are free. I suggest staying away from software licensed under the Creative Commons licenses. They are doing great work but their licenses are not intended for use with software.

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco-statement.html

There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling GPL'ed software. In fact, the FSF says to go right ahead and do so if you want. What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be.

So why C# instead Java? Well if you're not concerned with being locked into a single platform (which has the lions share of the market locked up) you get all of the advantages of Java with quite a few extras thrown in.

Lion's share of what market? Last time I checked, most people were using neither .Net nor Java on their web/application servers, its more likely to be PHP or Perl. Tell me again why I should base my choice of platform on what other people are using.

Applications which look like Native Win32 apps. Sorry, Java looks like ass.

Java's awt toolkit uses NATIVE components for rendering. Java's swing toolkit is 100% skinable so if it looks like shit, talk to the developer of the app.

Applications that just seem faster. Sorry, Java just makes my new box feel like an 8088.

So I guess you don't bother with device drivers either. All that hardware abstraction just makes apps "feel" slower. Jitted Java is no slower than C++ if it is written properly.

A great set of development tools and a huge body of excellent documentation.

Isn't it crazy how there are no sources of information on Java. I guess C# has it all over Java on this one. I guess the FREE development environments like, eclipse or netbeans or jcreator or Sun ONE Studio just don't provide anything useful to a developer, except may a choice in their ide. You can always buy a Java IDE from Borland or Oracle, or a thousand other companies.

The ability to pre-compile applications, negating speed disadvantages of the JIT compiler.

gcj

Like I said, .Net is Java with the added drawback of locking you into a single platform.

I'm having trouble finding the Jefferson reference.

GNU Philosophy

Did you tune the VM at all? I find this a bit difficult to believe. I run all sorts of rather complex, high traffic web apps with Java and I have never found a performance issue that couldn't be solved with a bit of application or VM tuning. If you are using default garbage collection on a large app you WILL have performance issues. Here's a good article on GC tuning

Or you could always compile your app into a platform specific binary, although, personally, I would rather just buy another server.

You can choose different thread models when using Sun's VM on Solaris, maybe that would help. I would also check out RedHat 9 which has the kernel 2.5 threading support back ported to a 2.4 kernel. You might also check out the Blackdown VM, which is compiled a little more agressivly than Sun's, also it has some Linux specifc stuff that may be applicable if you use that platform. Also maybe try IBM's VM, I used to use that back in the 1.3 days and it was noticably faster than Sun's 1.3 with default settings.

Weaker still when you take into accout the fact that the GPL has never been proved legal in a court of law. The FSF may think the GPL is strong enough, but others differ.

Cheers,

Morel

Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen.

The GNU General Public License depends on copyright law, not "intellectual property" laws (whatever those are). Intellectual property consists of not one cohesive set of laws but a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of disparate laws that cannot be properly understood if you refer to them as a whole.

As for being in nobody's interest to share--before the GNU Project existed virtually everyone shared code and ideas freely. Richard Stallman talked about this community (which he was a part of) because it highlights the jarring change that drove him to start the GNU Project. You should listen to his talks on the subject.

Software patents (as they have come to be known) were unnecessary for most of the time people have been writing computer software. Thus we can show by existence that people do not need these patents in the field of software to innovate. I don't know about other fields of endeavor, but in computer software they are generally unwanted and they actually serve to retard innovation.

Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen.

The GNU General Public License depends on copyright law, not "intellectual property" laws (whatever those are). Intellectual property consists of not one cohesive set of laws but a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of disparate laws that cannot be properly understood if you refer to them as a whole.

As for being in nobody's interest to share--before the GNU Project existed virtually everyone shared code and ideas freely. Richard Stallman talked about this community (which he was a part of) because it highlights the jarring change that drove him to start the GNU Project. You should listen to his talks on the subject.

Software patents (as they have come to be known) were unnecessary for most of the time people have been writing computer software. Thus we can show by existence that people do not need these patents in the field of software to innovate. I don't know about other fields of endeavor, but in computer software they are generally unwanted and they actually serve to retard innovation.