Ximian to Change License for Mono

A Commentor writes: "According to news.com Ximian is changing the license to Mono from GPL to a variant of the XFree license. Apparently this is due to a partnership with Intel." Update: 01/28 15:03 GMT by T : There's a story at NewsForge as well, where RMS weighs in firsthand on the license choice.

Comments

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

first post

Intel is a bunch of..

[Anonymous Coward]

..reasonable people, rather than a bunch of stinky commies.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

first post, sorry i couldn't resist :-$

slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

is for homo gay boys

thank you

-- Anonymous Fudgepack Coward

Headline misleading?

[MisterBlister]

From my reading of the article, they changed the license of the classes, not the whole of Mono.

This makes quite a bit of sense in terms of acceptance as if the root classes of the implementation are GPL that pretty much forces every application built to use Mono to be GPL. You can debate whether the classes would have been better off XFree-ish or LGPL, but they shouldn't be GPL (IMO), just as the gnu libc isn't GPL.

Re:Headline misleading?

[Ondo]

It wasn't just the headline that was misleading, the article is misleading. It was GPL and LGPL they switched from.

From Miguel's message to the Mono-announce list:

In behalf of all the Mono contributors to the project, we are announcing that the license for the Mono class libraries has been changed from the dual mode we had (GPL and LGPL) to the MIT X11 license.

Re:Headline misleading?

[J. Random Software]

"On behalf of all contributors"? Does Mono require copyright assignment of all contributions, or did they actually manage to persuade every contributor to subsidize non-Free Mono implementations? Their FAQ still says they'll generally accept GPL'd contributions (which implies they don't insist on the right to relicense).

Re:Headline misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

It requires copyright assignment

Re:Headline misleading?

[tftp]

I assume they didn't have too many *external* contributors to this very pre-alpha project. All internal contributors (the 50 programmers mentioned in the article) apparently signed license change agreements.

Re:Headline misleading?

[dknj]

"He doesn't like the license switch," de Icaza said. "It allows proprietary companies to benefit from the software."

Oh lets hurt the companies, I'm sure we could live without them.

Re:Headline misleading?

[myelin42]

I don't think it made it into the mailing list, but when I contributed code to mono (I did System.Net.Sockets.TcpClient and System.Net.Sockets.TcpListener), Miguel checked with me that it would be OK to release them under a BSD / X11 license.

Presumably the same goes for everyone else ...

Miguel de Icaza takes a shit

[Klerck]

Slashdot to post news story ASAP! (and by that I mean as soon as the editors stop sucking one another off.)

Re:Miguel de Icaza takes a shit

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be ASESSEOO...ASAP is completely the wrong nomenclature. Jeez, what kind of dumbass are you?

-penisman

gee

[Anonymous Coward]

its no wonder they are siding with intel, after all open source is useless crap without some real work put into it. not some 15 year old who is a poor coder with too much time on his hands

Maybe I got first post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am so proud of it. I even do this on Fark.com

Funny how that happens...

[sterno]

Always fascinating to see the how the ethics start sliding when the money from big corporations starts floating around. I mean, using another open source license is hardly unethical, but it's just deciding to change it because of Intel that grates on me. Seems like it would be doing the community a service to try to convince Intel of the value of a GPL'd product.

Granted, Ximian is a business, and it's not their job to evangelize the GPL. That's RMS' job last time I checked :).

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Ximian grew out of the Fever for the Flava of a GNU system...so their hysterical backpedalling on the license (and moreover, the movement) from which they sprang strikes me as nothing less than hilarious.

Re:Funny how that happens...

[RichiP]

I don't think it was so much as money "floating around" as it was "money not floating in" ... as in sufficient to keep the company's efforts going.

That's just a hunch, though

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Danielle Gatton]

I'd rather see pragmatism than evangelism at this point. Some form of .NET style framework is going to become a standard in the next few years, and I'd rather it were an open source one than an MS one. 50 volunteers and 5 Ximian developers simply don't stand a chance against MS. If it takes a BSD-style license to get Intel and HP on board, then so be it. Evangelize later, once you've got the leverage and mindshare.

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Enahs]

I'd ordinarily label this as "flamebait" and move on, but I've got to say...y'know, you're onto something.

I just had an online argument with a GNUbite and a GNOMEite about his/her (don't know which) "boycott" of KDE, because its mere existence had somehow put the Free desktop in jeopardy.

Well, here's the thing.

When I first started using Free systems (I used Linux for years, then went to FreeBSD, and back to Linux) the best I could come up with was TkDesk, and RMS didn't even like that because of Tcl licensing. At that point, GNUstep was little more than a pipe dream ('96) but now ('02) it's getting closer.

I look at it like this: the KDE project was based on Qt due to it being a nice toolkit and due to the naivete of the core team. They just weren't aware of the implications, and couldn't understand it because, let's face it, programmers aren't lawyers. Later on, some of the KDE project people worked to make Qt GPL-friendly, a fact that was completely ignored by the GNUbite crowd, and largely ignored during RMS's crowing after Qt was dual-licensed under the GPL/QPL. To admit that both sides wanted the same thing would be to admit that the GNUbites were a bit wrong to spew so much venom at the KDE crowd.

Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.

If anyone's been harmful to the Free desktop, it's GNOME, not KDE.

sorry to get on the KDE vs. GNOME tangent again; it just bothers me that GNOME, the GNU darling, is getting so darned commercial-friendly. Seems a tad contradictory. I'm not really a Free zealot at all. :-)

Re:Funny how that happens...

[miguel]

Actually, the Tcl licensing has always been fine (Tcl uses the "Ousterhout" BSD license, which is in essence the X11 license: BSD without the advertisement clause, so it is the best of both worlds).

I know that Richard was never particularly fond of Tcl as a programming language. Maybe this is what you are refering to?

Miguel.

Re:Funny how that happens...

[steveha]

KDE/GNOME is a bit off-topic for a discussion of the license of Mono's class libraries, but what the heck, I'm game.

the KDE project was based on Qt due to it being a nice toolkit and due to the naivete of the core team. They just weren't aware of the implications, and couldn't understand it because, let's face it, programmers aren't lawyers.

This excuse does not fly. Perhaps it could have been true for a short time, but lots of people pointed out that KDE was depending on non-free software. KDE could have adopted the Harmony project (free library compatible with Qt) but they chose not to do so.

(There was an essay about this, with a title something like "Why KDE still isn't a good idea". I've searched the web for a long time and I couldn't find it. I think I read it on Slashdot, but I can't find it here either. Can anyone help me out?)

It seems clear to me that we have GNOME to thank for Troll Tech freeing up their license on the Qt library.

By the way, read this:

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/qtcontroversy.html

To admit that both sides wanted the same thing would be to admit that the GNUbites were a bit wrong to spew so much venom at the KDE crowd.

I'd prefer that no one spew venom at anyone, least of all at fellow free-software developers. But I must say that I have seen about as much anti-GNOME venom as anti-KDE venom. Both desktops have lots of rabid supporters.

Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.

Let me get this straight. It is better for the free software world to depend on a commercial product, one you must sometimes pay for the right to use, than to depend on a completely free library? Nonsense. To believe that, you would have to believe that contributions by business to free software are tainted and bad. I don't believe that. If IBM wants to donate a journaling file system, big iron patches, or anything else to the free community, I'm all for it.

I also note your implication: if we didn't have GNOME we would have more free apps. Let's think about this. If some company wanted to make and sell a product to run under Linux, and they didn't want to pay for a Qt license, you think that they would then go ahead and write the product and give it away for free? Not in this world. They would just forget about writing the product. The people who want to release their software free will do it, whether they are developing for GNOME or KDE. Lack of a free alternative will not cause more people to give stuff away.

If anyone's been harmful to the Free desktop, it's GNOME, not KDE.

Utter nonsense. The competition between the two desktops has made both of them better. The KDE guys are doing a great job, but so are the GNOME guys. The big difference is that companies like Sun and HP are going to ship GNOME on their computers, not KDE. But you have totally failed to make any case that it's a bad thing when more computers are running a free desktop.

steveha

Re:Funny how that happens...

[steveha]

There was an essay about this... I couldn't find it.

Found it.

Why KDE is Still a Bad Idea

steveha

Re:Funny how that happens...

[vb.warrior]

Not a bad read, however this is fairly amusing:

"I'm pretty confident now that before a Free Qt can be done, GNOME will be in 1.0 or some higher release and will have established itself as the standard GUI of Linux. KDE will stay around as a good desktop with a faithful, though slowly diminishing, user community, but it won't grab the brass ring. "

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! An essay from 1998! How timely!

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Enahs]

Yes, and it's copyright 1998.

Way too old to be of any discussion value.

Re:Funny how that happens...

[cduffy]

* Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.

Having proprietary software written on top of free libraries running on free platforms is certainly better than having proprietary software written on proprietary libraries on proprietary platforms -- which is much of what would happen if all Free Software were GPLd. Those who use Free libraries to write proprietary software still contribute to the development of the libraries, and by becoming accustomed to Free software (and ceasing to fear it), they're more likely to start or fund purely Free software development in the future.

I say this as a fellow who has not infrequently written proprietary software as a consultant, but who makes regular use of Free software (ie. gtk+) as a base. Making gtk+ GPL-only wouldn't convince my clients to free their proprietary software -- rather, it would convince them to insist that I use a different widget set, or perhaps even a different platform. (Incidentally, I'm no longer consulting -- rather, I work for MontaVista Software, where the software I write and work on really is Free, though not always free).

Strongarm tactics such as GPLing libraries do nobody any good.

Re:Funny how that happens...

[steveha]

Yes, and it's copyright 1998.

Way too old to be of any discussion value.


I claimed that the KDE developers, when given a choice between Qt and a free clone of Qt, chose Qt... despite the non-free status of Qt at the time. Then I introduced that article to support my claim.

The 1998 copyright date doesn't matter, all that matters is whether the reference is accurate and supports my claim.

steveha

You do know what would happen now right?

[jpt.d]

The GNU-Nazi will have to start his own .Net clone. Because you know anything but GNU isn't truely free! (free as in shackles).

GNU.Net must come out of this I am sure.

Re:You do know what would happen now right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely familiar with the XFree license, but the article says its similar to the BSD license. If this is true, someone could take mono, fork it, and release it under the GPL.

Re:You do know what would happen now right?

[NumberSyx]

The GNU-Nazi will have to start his own .Net clone.

He already has, its called DotGNU

Re:You do know what would happen now right?

[Anonymous Coward]

free as in Arbeit macht.

I'm Not suprised

[NumberSyx]

Microsoft stands to gain the most from this. Now they can write closed libraries and charge for them. Of course if anyone wants to be able to use any .net services under Linux they will have to purchase the libraries, which will probably cost more than a retail copy of Windows XP.

Re:I'm Not suprised

[Aapje]

Microsoft stands to gain the most from this. Now they can write closed libraries and charge for them.

Of course they will do so (for extra services probably). But that will certainly not depend on the BSD-style license of Mono. At most a GPL license can make Mono no longer an option. But do you really believe that MS would change their ways to cater to the few Mono-dev'ers (which will probably be far, far fewer than .NET-developers)?

Personally I believe that we should forgo both .NET and Mono. MS will use .NET in illegal ways to further their monopoly, that is their way. A less-capable Mono will just draw people into the Web (you advocate Mono, .NET can do more, the company you work for decides to switch to .NET, bingo).

what this means

[PH15H3R]

so what this means is that companies can leech more talent and code from the open source community in a profitable way? a bad decision for open source in my opinion.

Re:what this means

[Wumpus]

The Wine developers recently debated whether to change the licence to LGPL from an X11 style license. They decided against it. One of the original reasons to go with the X11 license is worth keeping in mind: There's already a proprietary implementation of Win32. Microsoft sells it.

The same is true for .NET and Mono. The danger in a company making a proprietary version of Mono is in the proprietary version becoming more popular than the free version, and eventually incompatible with it. If this doesn't happen, users always have the choice between paying for a proprietary product, or getting the open source version. Microsoft's proprietary version of Mono pretty much makes this a non-issue.

MDFMK (or KMFDM)

[ArchieBunker]

A bolt of lightning
Out of the blue
Without forewarning
The heat is on you
What's that you say
The phone may be tapped
Under heavy surveillance
Looks like you're trapped

Under investigation
Whether guilty or not
That what you are doing
Is a part of the plot
Trying to hide
Going underground
It's just a matter of time
Until you will be found

Punished because of it's steady indifference of the underworld

Witch hunt
Guilty by association
Witch hunt
Systematic deprivation
Witch hunt
Process of elimination
Witch hunt
Demonized and sacrificed

There will be a general awaking of civic petulance, with police exercising, they take control, able to soon squad car, and before the realize what's happened to them, they are trapped

The noose is tightening
There's no return
Moral cleansing
Free-thinking left to burn
This is serious
Your face in the mud
The end of the story is
Written in blood

Freeze
Down on your knees
Beaten down
Tarred and feathered
They parade you around
The media's feasting
Your face on the news
It's a feeding frenzy
A moment to lose

Will you do your part?

Witch hunt
Guilty by association
Witch hunt
Systematic deprivation
Witch hunt
Process of elimination
Witch hunt
Demonized and sacrificed
Witch hunt
Guilty by association
Witch hunt
Merciless interrogation
Witch hunt
Ill reputed executed
Witch hunt
Witch hunt

Burn that witch

You've always been different
You've spoken you're mind
Set yourself apart
Now they hate your kind

The foreign opponent
The unknown factor
An alien component
In the remainder
It doesn't matter
What you say or do
There is no justice
No future for you
Because you're the scapegoat
You are to blame
This is your life
15 minutes of shame

The greatest moments for the future of our country

Witch hunt
Guilty by association
Witch hunt
Systematic deprivation
Witch hunt
Process of elimination
Witch hunt
Demonized and sacrificed
Witch hunt
Guilty by association
Witch hunt
Methodical eradication
Witch hunt
Crucified by moral elite
Witch hunt
Witch hunt

Burn that witch

It doesn't matter
What you say or do
There is no justice
No future for you
Because you're the scapegoat
You are to blame
This is your life
15 minutes of shame

Re:MDFMK (or KMFDM)

[Anonymous Coward]

MDFMK of course. And now something interesting I will share...

Has anyone ever noticed how, well, how skanky teen girls are these day? I am 24 year old male and I stalk a middle class suburban school, and I simply love the values of these girls. I would say that over 80% of them in 11th grade either do drugs regularly or get drunk on a weekly basis. This is great because I have a HUGE sex drive, am athletic and motivated, and those girls just love me.

Try it yourself. You will be surprised!

Probably a good thing

[1010011010]

Just as glibc and gtk are LGPL and not GPL, switching the license for the class libraries to a license that allows commercial software to be used with Mono is a good move.

I would have preferred the LGPL, but an X-style license is better than a lot of alternatives.

Of course, .Net may fizzle or end up being a bridge for viruses from Windows, which will make the choice of license less important, as no one will be using it. If it does work out, it might mean that you can finally buy Linux software at CompUSA.

I'm not sold on the whole clone-MS thing. On the one hand, it could lessen MSFT's grip on the market. On the other, MSFT will probably maintain incompatibilities with Mono, making Mono much less relevant. For instance, I doubt that they will ship a ".Net clean" version of Office that would run on Mono. Ditto for other cash-cow programs. However, I'll bet that Minesweeper.NET will be one of the first successes for Mono. ;)

Re:Probably a good thing

[tester13]

I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that Mono won't be fully compatible with .NET. Could it possibly be in MS's best interest to allow open development of software, while at the same time collecting fees from passport/.NET services?

Re:Probably a good thing

[Perdo]

Umm... Not to pick nits... but you can buy Linux software at CompUSA...

Sometimes it seems like many Linux users are so busy being activists that they forget the true state of Linux. Sort of like nazi-feminists are so busy being angry that they do not see that there are a lot of nice men out there.

Linux is sold at CompUSA and Best Buy. Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are all available right next to Windows with plenty of shelf space. Sure you can still be a Linux god and spend 24 hours downloading an entire distro on your DSL but it is really not necessary. Just go to the store a buy it. Go ahead and cough up the 29 bucks... Oh... You never want to pay for it? Not worth it? Then the commercial distros die.

Fact is it is worth it. Have you any idea how much old hardware I have rescued with my Red Hat Pro distro? Fantastic OS, on par with Win 98SE or Mac OS 9.1. for usability and smokes them in reliability.

Notice I left out 2000 and OS X. They have Linux's reliability.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Danielle Gatton]

Linux is even sold at Walmart nowadays. The store near me had Redhat and Mandrake distros in the electronics section, and a few different "teach yourself linux" books which included installation cds. The clerk I talked to didn't know what Linux was, and couldn't recall having ever sold it, but it was there nonetheless. Judging by the checkout lines, Mandrake would fly off the shelves if they "bundled" it with tube socks and huge bags of beef jerky.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Grue]

> Sure you can still be a Linux god and spend 24 > hours downloading an entire distro on your DSL > but it is really not necessary.

Well, that's nice of you to call most Debian users Gods :) Because currently I can't purchase the latest Debian testing dist. at any local Computer MegaStores. And Debian is a great dist., even if it isn't commercially widespread (with the exception of Progeny, which I haven't seen anywhere lately.)

So anyways, the point is, doing a net install of Debian is certainly a religious experience, but that doesn't make us quite gods.. yet.

Josh

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, because MS tends to corner the market regarding some of the services, like, for example, login and identification services. MS wants to be the one holding all the keys, able to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If there's an open implementation of .NET, then anyone can offer this service, which would be AGAINST MS's interests.

And in case you don't believe me, go ask MS. They're not making a secret of their intentions. Ofcourse, from their point of view they want to do it because they're just so damn good at writing software. Makes you want to howl with sarcastic laughter, doesn't it?

Re:Probably a good thing

[tester13]

I'm not being sarcastic here. What in your opnion then is MS's motivation for Mono cooperation at all? They must have something to gain from it right?

Re:Probably a good thing

[Perdo]

You spent time in this building, which makes you better than most. Try not to take that as my acceptance of your divinity.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

umm? am I on crack or does every one of my SuSE boxsets, and my 2 redhat boxsets come from compusa. My compuse even has FreeBSD (and it's the current version) before you go slamming nationwide computer chains, go check their stocks, they DO SELL AND HAVE DECENT SUPPORT FOR linux. The baseless accusations, the attacks on people who are in the community to "make money" (which if you read about the intent of the GPL and lGPL are an integral part of the freedoms established by those licenses, and what allows the distribution you use to exist.)

Trelane

Re:Probably a good thing

[Tim C]

Personally, I think you're right.

I think that, providing Mono is a success, we'll see ".NET clean" versions of Office, etc running on Linux under Mono.

I'd be surprised if there weren't the odd little "foible", a la Office for Mac - sure, it worked, mostly, but it just wasn't as good as the "real" version. What it was, however, was a little extra incentive to Mac users to make their next purchase a PC + Windows, rather than a Mac. I think we'll see the same thing with Mono, ie Microsoft using it to tempt people "back to the fold".

Failing that, it will be another sale of Office, and Microsoft makes far more money from that than they do from selling their OS, especially as most people get Windows "free" with their PC and never actually buy it at full retail.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:Probably a good thing

[megabeck42]

What's wrong with that building? The 1st and 3rd floors had little redeeming value, but, the rest of it was good. In fact, I spent a lot of time in that building. It's a good building, a solid building - It's not falling down any time soon.

Re:Probably a good thing

[ichimunki]

24 hours to download an ISO over DSL? Switch to cable! It took me an hour to download an ISO I needed recently. Due to my aging hardware it almost took longer to burn the sucker than it did to download.

Also, I'd say that it is fair even if you go downloading ISOs to buy the distro in its official version once in a while. And if you can't stomach that, use Debian and make a contribution to Software in the Public Interest and/or the Free Software Foundation.

And finally (off-topic now), I wasn't aware there were a lot of Nazi feminists. I thought the Nazis primarily promoted "traditional" values regarding the place of women in society.

Re:Probably a good thing

[daytrip00]

For instance, I doubt that they will ship a ".Net clean" version of Office that would run on Mono

The way .NET works is that code can be managed or unmanaged. Managed code is written in IL, and anything written in IL should be compatible. So as long as an application is 100% managed (EG.. does not use or link to any unmanaged libraries or classes (COM objects or Windows DLLs), or does not itself contain any unmanaged code) it will be compatible provided that the Mono .NET foundation classes are the same.

Furthermore, .NET applications link to a specific .NET library version, so even if Microsoft changes their libraries to be incompatible (everybody's chief fear), all of the old applications still link to the old Mono (and Microsoft .NET) libraries and binaries, and any new applications will run once Mono implements the same changes.

Personally, I think this liscence change is great (have been a BSD Liscence fan myself, anyway).

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, a significant chunk of MS's standard library calls into unmanaged code. This will require Mono to either adopt similar platform dependancies, or go with a "Pure .NET" approach for maximum portability.

The Slashdot Story Submission System

[New Movie Troll]

The Slashdot Story Submission System or Four-S (pronounced "force") is a closely guarded Slashdot secret. As much as Slashdot claims to be anti-patent, in their well-known hypocritical nature, they have a patent pending for their story submission system. It is this very system's precision and robustness that explains why slashdot is so popular yet other similar slashcode sites get less hits that the average AOL user's personal homepage.

Like the formula to Coca-Cola, KFC's secret recipe, and the chemical structure of SPAM, the workings of the Four-S system was the question keeping me awake at night. After weeks of saving my allowance, obtaining a fake ID and making a few trips to the seedier parts of town, I finally had everything I needed to discover the truth behind one of mankind's greatest mysteries.

Thanks to a life-size inflatable tux doll and a keg of mediocre quality lukewarm beer, I had little trouble coaxing the secrets of the Four-S system out of Rob Malda. Between mugs of beer and unspeakable acts against nature (and vinyl inflatable dolls), in his drunken slurred speech, he explained the most intimate details of the four-s system.

R.M.: Well... Hey, your kinda cute. Wanna see a cool trick I can do with a taco?

Me: Umm, I think I know what you have in mind - it won't work. When I was mowing a lawn last summer, I had an unfortunate accident and was involuntarily castrated. How that would effect the outcome of your trick should be self explanatory.

R.M.: Damn, that sucks. Hey, since you've taken yourself out of the gene pool, did you win a Darwin award?

Me: Did you win a Queer of the Year award? All fags like you should be given a Darwin award for taking themselves out of the gene pool. One more comment about my lack of balls and I'm deflating Tux!

R.M.: No, not Tux! I'm SO sorry! How can I make it up to you?

Me: The Four-S system. Tell me about it.

R.M.: Never. I'll take it to my grave.

Me: Damnit Rob, tell me or I'll shove my withered scrotum in your face. It's so nasty BME, Stileproject AND Steakandchese refused to post the picture!

R.M.: You make a compelling case, but no.

ME: Damn you, I'm so mad I don't feel like typing A HREF= anymore! Now you're gonna pay!

At this point I pull down my pants.

R.M: OH LORD OF ALL THINGS HOLY!!! I'M BLIND! OH THE AGONY! FOR GREAT JUSTICE, PUT YOUR PANTS BACK ON!

ME: Not until you tell me about the Four-S!

R.M.: Okay you win, I'll talk, I'll talk. Just put your pants back on.

ME: I don't trust you. Tell me about the Four-S first!

R.M.: Sigh. Okay, the Four-S. Most people think the Four-S stands for "Slashdot Story Submission System", they're wrong - it's just the public codename. It really is an acronym for the four steps involved in story selection. Scratch paper, spin, semen, shredder - That's what the Four-S really means.

During the first step, the "scratch paper" stage, hardworking monks here at Slashdot HQ carefully transcribe each story submission on to a piece of environmentally friendly recycled paper. For the "spin" step, these pieces of paper are then placed in a Kenmore dryer (set to air dry only, heat caused us to lose a whole day's worth of submissions once when the paper burst into flames!) for 5 minutes for a good randomizing effect. Now ready for the "semen" stage, one of the Slashdot editing crew opens the dryer door and proceeds to masturbate into the dryer. Whichever lucky paper happens to catch the wad of jism will be posted to the main page of Slashdot and then placed in the shredder. The reason for shredding a successfully submitted story is simple, if it's shredded, we can be sure we won't see the dried semen on it and accidentally post it again. Since we can only masturbate so many times in one day, you can understand why we're only able to post so many stories in one day - and why so many are rejected. This is exactly why the Four-S system is so much more versatile than other story submission systems.

Me: Wow, that explains a lot. So how did you come up with the Four-S anyway?

R.M.: I was up late one night trying to write a script to randomly pick story submissions, but everyone at Slashdot HQ kept complaining it wasn't random enough. After debating for hours, my throat was becoming sore and I was starting to go hoarse. In frustration, I finally yelled, "Well how do you propose I make it more random, use the for..(cough)..se?" At that moment, the idea dawned on me.

Me: Why am I not surprised?

R.M.: Now that you have this information, you have entered a circle of trust. Promise me you won't tell a soul about what I have told you today!

Me: (With fingers crossed) Sure, I promise.

Re:The Slashdot Story Submission System

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up:
+1, Funny

I admit it all

[Anonymous Coward]

After a long and thorough process of ANALysis I have concluded that I am gay.

I love cock!

Thank you.

Re:I admit it all

[New Movie Troll]

This calls for a song!

Ladies and gentleman, put our hands together for the largest ass on the Internet

G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the 8th wonder of the world
The ass of the century, oh it's timeless, GOATSE!
Thanks for clicking that link
You coulda been anywhere on the web
But you're here with me
I appreciate that

G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E

Reading drivel on that press release 'bout VA (Linux)
Was wondern' why they changed their names
Dumped that dirt cheap stock, through with them
If I worked there, I'd quit, no way I'd work for them
Wasn't born a coder, I just make fun of em'

G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E

Porno for freezy keeps my hard drive so sleasy
Can't leave Everquest alone, the game needs me
Hex editing my name into VB progs, it ain't easy
Slashdot wanna IP block me, I hang up and dial back in
And somehow, I beat the lameness filter like Rocky

G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E

Not guilty, he who mods me down is not real to me
Therefore he doesn't exist
So poof... vamoose son of a bitch

[Chorus]
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
Reading drivel on that press release 'bout VA (Linux)
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
That's the anthem get'cha damn hands up
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
Not guilty ya'll got-ta feel me
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
That's the anthem get'cha damn hands UP!

Holla at me...
I do this for the posters
To let 'em know what enlarged ass look like... when they shoulda looked at that link closer
Show 'em how to avoid a room full 'o taco snot coaxers
Get some good trolls in before the story's over
Posts with redirect goatse links even get modded up
I'm dissin JonKatz for those 15-year-old boys he seems to have a crush
Pay for premium Slashdot? You gotta be kidding us.
If /. ain't profitable, pimp your boy whores for mo' bucks

[Chorus]
Yeah...
GOATSE is back, trollin' parody of rap
Go on, click that link, view the crater in that crack
Like I told you sell boys, no
JonKatz does that so hopefully you won't have to go through that
I was raised on Windows, point and click
if you don't like that, you can suck my dick
Got an X10 camera, focused on my ass
Wanna see the picture, PayPal me some cash
Threshold under 0, why I got it so low?
Save good trolls on my disk, watchin' all the time for more
So you know I seen it all before
I seen redundant on karma whores when their link post was too late
Crapfloods and mod downs, the two things I hate
A good troll modded up, the two things is great
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
What else can I say about Slashdot, it'll turn a man gay

[Chorus]
G to the izz-O, A to the izz-T, S to the izz-E
(4x to fade out)

It's starting to look like...

[Anonymous Coward]

The death of the GNU movement from where I'm sitting. First VA drops "linux" from their name, and now -TaChing- Ximian are trying their best to desert this sinking ship just as fast as they possibly can.

Can I get a 'GNU is Dying', brothas?

What do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

from a Wop Diego?

I hate to say this, but

[tulare]

I need to waste a little karma. So here goes:

1. All your code module licensing are belong to us!

Whew.
Actually, since they are changing the licensing for their modules only to the XFree86 license and not the entire Mono, I don't think we will see too much trouble. Besides, it's not like the X license is all that bad now, is it?

Re:I hate to say this, but

[Sivar]

I probably shouldn't reply to this...

I really like FreeBSD and X, both of which have BSD style licenses.
However, every time I think of Microsoft getting the benefit of the FreeBSD networking code that took years to polish, and not even giving credit, I feel ill.

Re:I hate to say this, but

[tulare]

Good point - actually I agree with you. But there is a balance of keeping the devil of Redmond out, while gaining less in terms of exposure versus developing a superior product which might actually gain a larger user base. I still prefer the GPL, but if changing the license was what it took to get Intel on board... I don't know. Fortunately, it wasn't my decision. I can't say what I would have done.

Re:I hate to say this, but

[__past__]

Everytime I think of Microsoft getting the benefit of Free Os in networking code, I feel happy, because the net would be a even more ugly and insecure place if those idiots would try to do it themselves.

Unfortunatly, they usually do it themselves.

Re:I hate to say this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft particularly worse in your mind than AT&T, Sun, Apple, IBM, and virtually every other company in the industry that ever did a TCP/IP implementation?

Re:I hate to say this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, that's probably because they don't *use* FreeBSD networking code. Thanks for playing, though.

Re:I hate to say this, but

[GreyPoopon]

But there is a balance of keeping the devil of Redmond out, while gaining less in terms of exposure versus developing a superior product which might actually gain a larger user base.

Why don't we create a new license that has all of the benefits of a BSD style license except that it explicitly excludes Microsoft or any of its subsidiaries from those benefits? :)

First Post <--WRONG!!

[Big_Ass_Spork]

I claim your FP, please log in next time and you may keep it ;) +- j a c k - o f f - j a c k - o f f -+ | | \ \ | j | \ \ __ j a \ \ \/__|__,,..---v--. a c |__,,\.--"""K_' | \ c k | \ _> k o | _ _ _ _ | / o f | /_v_v_v_\..---""'`-' f f | __,,.| |_| | | f | / \ \_h_h_h_/ | j | | j a | | a c |\ | c k | \___/ k o | o f | f f | f | | | +- j a c k - o f f - j a c k - o f f -+

6dede82d
Wee575681M
a1e1d88d
W7d137d41M
dd519dad
W33db00e3M
2affb96b
W26c3584dM
8cd37235
W1e15d7c7M
7e996ac1
W6f5545dbM
d7551e27
W28d578c1M
9101a897
W57afa441M
7eddc471
Wb0558023M
7a2f63ff
W6199ef17M
0d97cf89
W5a334e11M
26c9b011
Wc8cb1441M
d6dbee6d
W1e79eb71M
a915cef1
W5bdde8edM
9827319f
Wf0970ef1M
2a075ec7
Wf559be8bM
ba234831
W08674207M
7a39a6c3
W94a717d7M
3199dcb3
Wcb2525f7M
42ef0421
W171b7dd5M
00831245
W547bd8c3M
d711771f
W90f574d1M
56ff218d
W9f7b7a3fM
a4315007
W4655915dM
545115b7
W4f9dd0fdM
438dfc2d
W444bad55M
67e7a979
W19bf0f61M
2b03f2e5
W99c73cdbM
525b440f
Wcd2bb891M
fe1fc297
W30a9c35bM
c6691641
Wfc8fa57bM
7f133da7
W46b56887M
a9f55759
W470729d5M
1fb9c787
W8695ad5dM
f711a22d
W41115923M
3293c1b3
Wc0df411fM
3cf3721b
Wfd956ba7M
bbcd18a9
W450df657M
c0f7c009
W36e54375M
e239f0f5
Wda87d7dbM
3fa3bf63
W17b71161M
004f7427
W59975dc3M
4da7bb1d
Wa42d1a09M
5533bdd7
We471c273M
58d912b7
Wc2cd9ad9M
55afe8a7
Wc0317799M
49375735
We58bcefdM
9d353b43
Wcddbbb25M
c1e78825
W52bb146dM
7edf7557
Wa35f4c53M
0239709b
W0e2130e7M
366f3ca1
W448d40a9M
669f2435
W61e3b6f5M
b951a9e1
W7c21f8edM
89bd9c17
W07918ae3M
2795f5df
Wd4c33637M
055373f1
Wf12587cbM
dcf7466d
W31fd4ee1M
d355c6f7
Wb1fd448bM
21d99b63
W0943838dM
4ed52ce3
W87e3f8cbM
7c45dba5
W3af17427M
d515d6ff
W040781f7M
a0ed021b
W8b4db4e3M
0677cd17
W5401884bM
042b6ab5
Wbb81833bM
a78d4a7f
W2ad1c3c5M
0b013f6d
W42a59af3M
220b3b13
W49e16129M
dc1b0545
Wa6af2b15M
a5d1d83b
Wa9ff870bM
d0c94945
W7589eaf5M
e9e365e5
W4463fabfM
86076d7f
Wddfd4f31M
8d710f83
W7bafe565M
8d77960d
We8c1dea7M
18d1e515
W24ebb8e3M
be63b60f
W516da787M
9e81f81d
W308734ebM
26bbbcaf
Wff89d441M
fc2798ad
Wf35b8bf3M
9c1de21d
W1f816093M
bb91b255
W0fa7a83bM
eccb1495
Wdba7ee7dM
93b74937
Wfe1390c7M
b0ab8555
Wb539bb4dM
89b516f5
W36afee6bM
ba5355a9
W7d5bb495M
b1d147bd
Wf9f5b0bbM
27fd63df
Wee19ad31M
907d5745
Wb9c5d317M
148b3853
We367b243M
1b4b0dc9
W226741a5M
e8871265
W34238037M
59fb9d11
Wc389de57M
4b211581
W2b0f17c1M
a773dd67
W5945a5e3M
b3379613
W9fd972dbM
92c3aaa1
Wb51df4c9M
98498699
Wb01359c7M

Re:First Post <--WRONG!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blabber all you want, mine is still the first post
displayed on the list! HAHAHAHA!

I see RMS objects to the change

[KNicolson]

And in other news, bears object to urban toilet facilities.

down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I know that I'll get flamed to death for it (well if I provided an email). But, I really had a revelation reading Stallman's last GPL style rant about Word attachments. He really makes it difficult for reasonable people who agree with him on many fundamental things (I agree that Word attachments are bad).

It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom. I want the right to view, port, and tweak code. We agree there. But, I do not want the right to force others to let me view, port and tweak their code. Stallman disagree's there. At one time I had the deluded notion that the GPL was all about making certain that those who contributed to Open Source didn't try to just steal from it outright and wanted to provide more protection than the BSD license. But, it is quite clear that the agenda is bigger than that. It is that there be no closed code at all. The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source. It is there to deliberately attempt to eliminate closed source. That is a foolish endeavor in and event.

Please folks, don't be paranoid. BSD licenses represent true freedom. So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification. It is more likely, you will get credited in that instance whereas a GPL stealer will attempt to hide from GPL responsibilities. I fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community.

Maybe some people's feelings got hurt when MS used the BSD code for their networking implementation. But, looking at the big picture it got networking more standardized and interoperable. BSD was not directly hurt at all. With the desktop monopoly of closed software it is almost impossible for one to make headway with a low level GPL innovation. At best a corrupted twisted half assed version will be released by microcrap and everyone will suffer. OTOH, a BSD innovation can easily become a standard in both closed and open source communities.

Please, down with the GPL...

Re:down with GPL

[xonker]

It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom.

Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that the GPL and RMS are inseparable. The GPL is about sharing code, and protecting it. RMS may have an agenda that's beyond that, probably, in fact. But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.

I really wish that RMS would retire at this point and allow some more reasonable and personable people to further the Free Software cause. I think he may be doing more harm than good at this point.

I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it. If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code. If that price isn't acceptible, then they shouldn't look to building on Free Software.

The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source.

Right and wrong. The viral nature isn't a side effect -- it's a feature. The GPL's primary goal is to protect the software from being closed, but it is not in and of itself a means to kill off closed-source software. Nothing about the GPL prevents companies from releasing closed-source software, it only prevents them from using the GPL'ed software in those products. Sure, I bet many developers hope that the GPL would be the dominant license, but using the GPL only harms closed source software by providing an alternative and giving people a choice. If closed source software can't compete, oh well.

So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.

Just lay back and take it, I suppose. Gee, I didn't know Billy G. read Slashdot. This isn't a trivial matter, so don't trivialize it. Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.

However, I see nothing that serves the Greater Good in allowing companies to embrace and extend Free Software and having no obligation to contribute. If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do. They can either pay up to the original developers and convince them to dual-license the software, or write it from scratch. If you went to one of these companies and said "hey, my small business is just getting started and I need 20 licenses for your software to seed my business" they'd tell you "no free lunch. Pay up or fsck off." You should tell them the same.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

micro$erf go spin your lies elsewhere

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

He really makes it difficult for reasonable people who agree with him on many fundamental things (I agree that Word attachments are bad).

I don't know about you, but a lot of what RMS rants about seems reasonable to me. I've seen what 'intellectual property' has done to software and computing since the mid-1970's, and I'd say that there's been _less_ cooperation and innovation than if code sharing wasn't discouraged.

It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom. I want the right to view, port, and tweak code. We agree there. But, I do not want the right to force others to let me view, port and tweak their code.

It's obvious that you don't understand the GPL at all. Firstly, no one tells you how to license your code. If you don't want anyone to view it, here's a couple options I'll suggest:

• Use the GPL or GPL'd code, but don't distribute source or executables. A lot of companies I've worked for have done this (think ADA, chill, gcc, emacs, etc.) and use the code internally. This is perhaps the biggest misconception about the GPL. It allows complete freedom with what you _do_ with GPL'd code (in stark contrast to, say, the Apple Public Source License). The only restrictions cover distribution.
  
• Use a different license. GNU GPL advocates make suggestions; they're not forcing you to use the GPL. If you find it annoying, don't listen and use a different license.
  

What's so difficult about that?

Re:down with GPL

[znu]

Amen to that! The success of the BSDs, XFree86, and especially Apache (which, with 60% of the web server market, is open source's biggest success to date) demonstrates that it simply isn't necessary to enforce software freedom at the expense of developer freedom.

Re:down with GPL

[infiniti99]

If all you want to do is make open code and just give it away to society, then sure, use a BSD-style license. If you don't mind who uses it, you're sort of just throwing it out in the road, use a BSD-style license. Some people like licenses like these, and I can see myself using this license depending on the project.

On the other hand, the GPL is about keeping things open. The classic problem with societies is that there is always someone who breaks the rules, or who won't play fair with the rest of us. The GPL exists to solve this problem and protect developers. This way, I can create code that is open, and if anyone wants to use it then their code must remain open also. Is that really too much to ask? I made something that you may use for free, and now I want you to do the same for me. That's the point of the GPL. It's to force people to play fair. Otherwise, you'll have good honest people making all this free code, and then other people/companies will just take it without giving back.

It sounds to me like you just want to take.

Please, don't whine about licenses. It is up to the developer to choose. Don't complain when something is GPL, geez. Be glad you have the code.

Re:down with GPL

[ainsoph]

I think you have it all wrong. RMS is about *POT SMOKING* to the nth degree.

I have no issues with pot smoking, but ya gotta admit, only potheads ramble on about secret codes in the .doc format, and various other things along that line. I mean just look at the wording of that thing, you'd think he was some long haired bearded guy who has a pic of himself with robes on and a halo above his head. Prolly likes the Grateful Dead too.

In independent studies that I have conducted in my own life, I have concluded that *POT SMOKING* keeps you thinking like a socialist and creates a compelte rejection of authoritarian values.

YMMV.

Re:down with GPL

[Bondolo]

The GPL is just creative use of copyright law to create a regime not too dissimilar to the patent system so strongly opposed by the FSF. Difference being that the patent system is designed to protect patent holders profits and the GPL system ensures that there are no profits. Both stink if you ask me.

The BSD license is the real freedom. If Micro$oft or anyone else uses BSD code and doesn't add any real value in their commercial product, well then others are free to undercut them. The less value they add, the easier it should be for others to do so. BSD licenses are "the rising tide that raises all boats".

Re:down with GPL

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

BSD licencing is not about freedom. Licencing is not about freedom. It is about restricting freedoms.

If you want your code to be "free", stick "Public Domain, do whatever you want with it" at the top. Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author. It's not much, but they've still lost the ability to create software without crediting anyone.

Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist. Just let software authors create software with whatever licence they want.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

This way, I can create code that is open, and if anyone wants to use it then their code must remain open also. Is that really too much to ask?

As a matter of fact it is.

You're restricting my freedom to create closed source applications and make money with it. Don't whine about it. If you were really for freedom, you'd release your software as Public Domain. Anything else is restrictive.

Re:down with GPL

[fonebone]

You're restricting my freedom to create closed source applications and make money with it.

actually, i'd interpret as saying, you can use my work as long as i can use yours. you can still make money off GPL'd code, you just have to distribute the source code. i'm sure you can imagine a situation where people would buy software which is also available free (ie, RedHat), especially if it came with a level of support or some other service.

Re:down with GPL

[cow-orker]

But, it is quite clear that the agenda is bigger than that. It is that there be no closed code at all.

The point is simply that Free and proprietary code don't mix well. If you allow Free code to be used in proprietary products, it ends up non-free, some company makes money and doesn't give back to the community. Otoh, if you allow proprietary code to be used in Free software, some company invests money and the community doesn't give back.

It doesn't work out either way. Therefore, companies don't allow Free use of their code and the community should not allow non-free use of their code. Which makes the GPL exactly right.

Should some company have a need to use Mono, they should license it. For money, for some patent exchange, whatever. Two worlds, keep them separate.

Re:down with GPL

[AbsoluteRelativity]

Your ideas apply to copyrights (and patents) in general as well, not just to the specific licenses. Do you want the right to force others to credit you? Think about also how BSD originally required that you credit the authors in advertisement, and how the author list became so huge that no one would want to ever advertise BSD software. Copyrights, basicly chop up structures/combinations of information as property. If you view the world of information and ideas as a world map, you can see the GPL nation (blue), the MS EULA nation (red), the BSD nation (green), etc etc etc, each dividing the land amongst themselves and you can see them as warring with each other over land and property.

Re:down with GPL

[Aapje]

But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.

That was his point wasn't it? GPL'ed code can never become part of a (partly) closed sourced solution (well, there are some loopholes, but basically this is correct) or even a non-GPL open source product. Those are some serious limitations, I think you need a really good reason to license code that way.

If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code.

You may hold this reasoning for applications, but I don't believe that architecture code should be restricted to disallow commercial use. If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so? Is it not the ultimate compliment to you and an excellent way to spread good code/standards? Similarly, why should application developers be barred from creating commercial apps for Linux or KDE? The only reason seems a hatred of commercial developers, protecting your code from abuse and hidden extensions can be achieved with LGPL.

I don't mind if programmers use LGPL so additions/changes to your code become public again. Asking a price for commercial use (dual GPL/commercial) may also be acceptable although it can hurt small (shareware) developers.

I believe that open source is one of the most potent forms of cooperation. Some companies are starting to get this (Apple, IBM, Netscape). They understand that their infrastructure is not a strategic advantage and open source is an excellent way to reduce costs by sharing code. 'Stealing' code from an open source project is the most stupid decision in this case. Forking is a huge waste of recources, you want your changes back in the main CVS to reduce the cost of merges as much as possible. This argument is the reason I like BSD-like licenses so much, they give up almost all restrictions, allowing managers to experience the benefits of open source and giving them the freedom to learn about the best way to leverage it. They will start to contribute, it's just the most logical thing to do. And if a company does decide to extend the software and keep the changes hidden, the open source project can copy the new features. If they are unable/unwilling to do so, the company clearly has provided a useful product that goes beyond the open source version. This does not hurt the open source project, but does increase "overall happiness" as there is more choice.

This scenario, where companies are a big force in open source and many open source developers will actually get paid, will not happen with GPL. It (rightfully IMO) scares the shit out of managers. They will just keep their programmers on closed sourced projects, instead of assigning them to open source work. Guess who wins here (acronym, starts with a M and ends with an S)?

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates think like that... and sadly, I have to agree with both of you 8-)
GPL is too restrictive and so not really about freedom. If I had to release my code in the public domain, surely it would be under a BSD like license. Of course I'd get ill if I see M$ getting more richer takin my code. But I'd be happy if lot other small company get bigger using my code, improve it and selling it...
This is how standarts works: erverybody can use it, not only the one that doesn't make money with programmation (IMHO)

The question is: what would have be Linux new if Linus originally released it under a BSD like license? Would it be the root of others splitted-to-hell Unices tree?

Re:down with GPL

[muleboy]

This scenario, where companies are a big force in open source and many open source developers will actually get paid, will not happen with GPL. It (rightfully IMO) scares the shit out of managers. They will just keep their programmers on closed sourced projects, instead of assigning them to open source work.

What are some examples of companies investing a significant amount of money in a BSD project? Seems to me like most companies would be more afraid of BSD projects, because if they make project X the bomb, their competitors can swoop in for nothing and make an even better application out of it.

Here is the free software I use daily which was developed in large part by companies:

Xwindows (is this similar to BSD?)
Netscape (definitely not BSD)
StarOffice (definitely not BSD)
SourceForge (no way)
KDE/Qt (nope again)

It looks to me like most companies would prefer to use a more restrictive license such as the GPL to make sure their competitors can't benefit from their code. In other words: companies are more likely to take from BSD, and more likely to give to GPL.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree GPL is a very bad idea, if only because it allows parasitic organisations such as Redhat to profit from other peoples hard work. If somebody wants to release software as open-source, do so, but do not expect others to do the same.

If you create something, you have ownership (apart from a few obvious exceptions, such as children).

If you write a good piece of software, please, sell it, everyone benefits, the economy, the seller makes a buck, nd the customer has the legal right to expect a high quality product.

Saying that GPL is free is like saying China is communist, on the surface, yes, under the surface, the bad guys get richer, and the good guys get poorer.

Re:down with GPL

[Ded Bob]

If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do.

Ask yourself these quesitons:

1) Is my goal to make money off of this software?

If yes, then why GPL it in the first place?

If no, then why complain about others doing just that?

2) Is my goal to make a standard with my software?

If yes, then why limit the usage base of the code?

If no, then any open-source license will do.

I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it.

Personally, I don't like "open" licenses which have such strict stipulations. It is similar to having an open bar with a sign saying "No Irish allowed." If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".

Re:down with GPL

[mshiltonj]

I had the deluded notion that the GPL was all about making certain that those who contributed to Open Source didn't try to just steal from it outright and wanted to provide more protection than the BSD license. But, it is quite clear that the agenda is bigger than that. It is that there be no closed code at all. The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source. It is there to deliberately attempt to eliminate closed source.

Okay, Mr. Gates.

Closed closed source is fine.

If you want to spend your time and money developing code and never release the source, you have that right. That should not ever be prohibited.

But you can't take millions of lines of code that was developed, for free by volunteer developers, behind your walled garden and label that as 'closed'.

Under BSD, you can.

As a developer, if you write a program, and you don't want *your* code to be used by AOL or MSFT in their unending quest to crush their competition and meet their quarterly target -- with zero compenstation to you -- then you have the GPL to protect you against that.

This is a Good Thing.

Outside of MS/AOL/et al, I don't understand the resistance to GPL, especially among slashdotters.

BSD: I wrote this code for Microsoft, but you can use it too.

GPL: I wrote this code for you -- not microsoft.

Re:down with GPL

[radja]

>Personally, I don't like "open" licenses which have such strict stipulations. It is similar to having an open bar with a sign saying "No Irish allowed." If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".

I see it slightly different: Everyone is allowed to come to the party, but everyone needs to bring a bottle of liquor. You wanna come to the party, but don't want to bring a bottle? tough.

I do agree it's a restriction on freedom.. one which I happen to like. But the BSD licence is more "free". Choose your licence according to your own taste. Each has its own pros and cons.

//rdj

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

As the original poster I can see I made several errors in that middle of the night post. I apologize to the community. I'll correct and clarify a little.

Yes, Stallman and the GPL aren't the same thing. But, since he endorses and supports it so lovingly, and seemed to have been dragged to open source in a more general way, then I don't see why the separation means much in retort to my article. He is the prime representative of open source and his love for the GPL and objection to closed source, hurts the open source movement.

I fail to see how preventing private companies from using open source helps the greater good. The only way they can effectively embrace and extend open source projects is to put a tremendous amount of improvement into them. Otherwise, the open source community will simply embrace the extension. ;]

The GPL is about a selfish kind of freedom I try to teach my son not to embrace. It forces all of the ideals of its designers on those who only embrace some of them. Billy's not sharing with Sally is not excuse for Johnny not sharing with Billy. Nobody else is working hard so why should I? whaa whaa whaa! GPL boosters sound like whiney kids. You do what is right regardless of the actions of others.

There are NO cases of BSD being hurt by someone taking code and not giving back. Its not possible. Let's assume that some major piece of BSD innovation was embraced and extended into closed source (the new version 5 file system for example). Exactly how does that hurt the BSD other than perhaps the feelings of some childish programmer? All it can do is help users and the BSD community. If the closed source version is a vast improvement that is worth paying for then BSD users get an alternate source for improved functionality at a price. If it is a small improvement the BSD community can simply copy it.

The one benefit I can see of the GPL is that perhaps the childish ones who start using open source will eventually now see the light. Perhaps it will bring more over to true open source - open source that cares more about open source and the community than some petty selfish notion of fairness.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

>I fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community.

I think you are missing the point entirely. Do you understand the very reason that Free Software came into existence in the first place?

Closed source, proprietary software hurts Linux users when it appropriates free software code to improve itself. They should be required to pick a side: do you want to give freedom to the user or not? If not, then they should not be use free software to improve their position in the "marketplace".

Free software is about choice and freedom. Pick a license. BSD style, GPL, other, whatever. With Gnome now going down the path of convenience and taking away freedom from users, apparently I now will have to make a choice.

Bye bye Gnome.

Re:down with GPL

[Aapje]

What are some examples of companies investing a significant amount of money in a BSD project?

Apple brought us Darwin (and are paying Hubbard's salary to get their changes back into the FreeBSD sourcebase). They also have open sourced their Quicktime Streaming Server with a non-copyleft license.

IBM created the predecessor to Xerces and gave it away. They have also contributed to the Jakarta project and a lot of other open source projects. Furthermore they created the only decent open source Java compiler: Jikes. The IBM Public License it falls under is BSD-like.

Lotus contributed the basis for Xalan.

Sun open sourced Tomcat and Ant.

A load of companies have contributed to Apache (the Apache license is BSD-like, BTW).

Same for XFree (based on the MIT-license, which is almost the same as BSD).

This is only the tip of the iceberg of course, but I shan't spend all day searching the web. A lot of company resources are spend on lesser known software or spend by lesser known companies. Furthermore, many contributions are small bugfixes or additions. The total of these is a substantial (in man-hours) and important contribution to open source products. Apache wouldn't be as stable and full-featured without the contributions by many companies. But we are just at the beginning of open source, many more enterprises will look beyond the hype and see the real value of opening up the source.

That is, if they don't get put off by RMS & co. ESR is doing the right thing with opensource.org (and his involvement with Mozilla) to work together with companies and solve their problems. Thus we end up with the famous "win-win situation"(tm). Companies can lower their expenses and we will have open source software. That is far better than the "I want open source at all cost, screw companies and their developers"-attitude of RMS. That may appeal to students and professors, but it will not convince managers and developers who do not believe in free money (the ones that didn't switch to a .com and thus still have a job).

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong:-) - how not to start a response

Think of GPL as being a mechanism that traps all the common knowledge in the land of freedom. Everyone can use it and build upon it if they want but in doing so they have to also contribute.

The GPL does not give you any rights to prize free the code that someone else writes unless it is based on the foundations that are free. In which case why should they benefit on the shoulders of others?

Long live the GPL because then more software becomes available for people on the whole including the populations of poorer (financially per head) nations like China and India.

It's in the best spirit of helping your neighbour.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The X Windows license is very similar to the BSD license. Why don't you read it for a change

Re:down with GPL

[reg]

Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.

As someone who uses a BSD license (and wouldn't use the GPL if my life depended on it), I would say that this is the crux of any licence flame war...

But I will say that most BSD programmers don't care about whether or not their code is used in proprietary software. Mostly, people who code BSD software only care about writing good software - software that they want to use.

But, on the taking over the world lark, BSD software takes a different approach to the GPL. The approach is known as 'raising the bar'. If there is BSD licenced software which is better than your commercial software, then why bother with continued development on your source (especially if your shareholders find out that some geeky schoolkids, who probably don't even speak english ;-), are giving away what your highly skilled engineering department is late delivering, and over budget on nerf guns...)

As an approach, raising the bar has already been very successful:

• Darwin is based on BSD code, because Apple realised it was cheaper than maintinaing NeXT OS.
• Oracle dumped their web server in favour of Apache. So did several other web server developers...
• Microsoft used BSD code in developing their TCP/IP stack. Let's wait and see what happens with IPv6...

There are several other places where raising the bar is working too, like OpenGL, where XFree86 is slowly becoming the de facto X/Windows standard. With the slow death of custom graphics hardware, don't be surprised if XFree86 takes over entirely from The Open Group.

Regards,
-Jeremy

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how many closed source distributions of FreeBSD are there? NetBSD? OpenBSD?

right, nuff said.

Re:down with GPL

[EllisDees]

Ok, BG...

But, I do not want the right to force others to let me view, port and tweak their code.

I totally agree with RMS here. If someone wants to have the advantages of my code, they are going to have to make the same sacrifices as I made. If they don't like it, that's tough. Freedom, schmeedom - if you wanna see my code, you are going to show me yours. It's as simple as that.

So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification. It is more likely, you will get credited in that instance whereas a GPL stealer will attempt to hide from GPL responsibilities.

So what? So I want code! The GPL forces you to give me the code. I don't care at all about the recognition or the money, what I want is perpetual access to an ever-improving codebase. If that means that there is no 'commercial' software in the future, so be it.

Re:down with GPL

[mshiltonj]

And just how many closed source distributions of FreeBSD are there? NetBSD? OpenBSD?

Why would Microsoft want to do distribute a closed source version of *BSD? I was refering to the BSD License, not the OS.

How many closed source distributions of kerberos are there? I know of one: Microsoft Kerberos. Like the lead of the article says, BSD license allows MS to "Embrace, Extend, [and] Extinguish" OSS initiatives.

Re:down with GPL

[KjetilK]

But, it is quite clear that the agenda is bigger than that. It is that there be no closed code at all.

Huh? You talk like this is some kind of hidden agenda....? RMS has made it perfectly clear that his long-term goal is to throw out software licenses. The GPL is just means to get there.

As I see it, GPL is first and foremost there to promote the ideas of free software, which will ultimately lead to that all software licenses will be abandoned.

BSD licenses are used to promote some specific piece of software, application or codec. If that is what you want to do, go with BSD, I have no problem with that.

But, you may also want to put your software in the public domain, if it is really ultimate freedom for all you have in mind. If you do, you would agree with RMS' ultimate goal, but rushing it there may hurt more than it's worth.

Re:down with GPL

[xonker]

If no, then why complain about others doing just that?

Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.

If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".

Spoken like a true free-marketroid. Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party." The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright. Their limitation, not mine. Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.

Re:down with GPL

[xonker]

a selfish kind of freedom

Huh? Go back to bed, you're still not making sense.

some petty selfish notion of fairness.

Since when is a notion of fairness petty?

Sorry, but what you're basically arguing is that it's not enough to be generous, you have to be a sucker too.

If the closed source version is a vast improvement that is worth paying for then BSD users get an alternate source for improved functionality at a price.

If the original version was worth developing on top of, why shouldn't the company have to contribute something back?

Please, explain to me why it is selfish to expect others to play by the same rules I set for myself but it's not selfish for for-profit entities to expect to harvest good code without paying anything -- either in code or licensing fees.

Again, no one is forcing you to use the GPL. You like the BSD style license? Use it. But don't bitch because someone else chooses the GPL. Calling a developer who licenses their work under the GPL "selfish" is a bunch of crap. They're giving their work away, but they want to make sure that it stays free.

You seem to have the idea that companies have a inherent right to just take, take, take anything they want but individuals have no right to direct the way the things they create are used or to expect anything in return for their code unless they're selling it. I can't find any logic in that.

Re:down with GPL

[xonker]

What I fail to understand is how anyone can feel justified in flaming the GPL, or people who use it. It's their choice. The same people who flame the folks who use the GPL (I'm not lumping you in this group) seem to believe in freedom of choice for everyone else except the original developer.

If the BSD theory works for you, cool. I don't really care if a project I work on "takes over the world" but I don't want to see it pop up in a proprietary product. If it never achieves world dominiation, so be it.

Re:down with GPL

[HiThere]

I fail to see how preventing private companies from using open source helps the greater good.

Many people are more willing to share the valuable things that they have (code) if they feel that it will not be sold back to them at a high price. This is self defense.

The GPL is about a selfish kind of freedom...

Possibly. But for whatever reason GPL based projects have had a tendency to develop (or fail) more rapidly than BSD based projects. This seems to be systematic, so one might consider that it ties into acutal, as opposed to idealized, human nature.

Billy's not sharing with Sally is not excuse for Johnny not sharing with Billy.

It isn't? If I thought your stand were admirable, I would congratulate you. As it is I can only suggest that you donate all your funds to Billy Gates. I'm sure he would appreciate them. You won't? How selfish of you! And how reasonable. People practice reciprocal altruism based on expectations. The GPL attempts to recognize this, though imperfectly successful.

Recent studies demonstrate that people are more willing to contribute to common benefit if they feel that nobody is benefiting unfairly, and that they are even willing to pay extra if that will punish the "freeloaders". I've seen several variations of this study recently (check the recent issues of Science News and New Scientist). Now intuitively, this seems one of those "How obviously true, why did they bother" results. But this thread is an example of why they needed to bother.

Bear in mind that people are frequently quite willing to argue that you should sacrifice for the common good, without themselves being willing to perform the same sacrifice. This is quite understandable, but I find that it is on the same moral level as a stereotypical used-car salesman.

If people want to use the BSD license, it's ok with me. I just don't want them preaching to me that I should use it. (If they want to pay me to use it, that's quite different.)
.

Re:down with GPL

[Ded Bob]

Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.

If you said the beer was free for everyone, you could not complain, especially if you had an unlimited amount of beer.

Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party."

Remember: they never claimed to be free. I never stated they were either. I am talking about what GNU licenses are supposed to represent.

The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright.

Or they just want the code they write to be theirs. They may not care about the rest of the code.

Spoken like a true free-marketroid.

Huh? Is this supposed to be an insult?

Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.

I have no problems about the rules. I just don't like the idea of claiming something is free when not everyone can use it as they see fit.

Recall the barcode reader that was given away for free (last year?). They said it was free, but they objected to its use outside of their restrictions. In my opinion, it was not truly free.

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Once market nishes are divided, there will be little or no chances for ordinary developers to benefit from their innovations, based on the GPL code. Whatever smart thing they'll invent, it will be iimediately available for inclusion into competing products by market leaders like RedHat, thus eliminating any advantage original inventor had initially. In effect, developer community _will_ work to make RedHat (SuSe, place your fauvorite distribuiton vendor here) richer for free.

Re:down with GPL

[Ded Bob]

I do agree it's a restriction on freedom.. one which I happen to like. But the BSD licence is more "free". Choose your licence according to your own taste. Each has its own pros and cons.

I can agree with this.

Re:down with GPL

[man_of_mr_e]

I think what most BSD proponents are upset about is that few GPL advocates truly understand the nature of the GPL, or what the politics are behind it.

I can't count the number of times I've talked to someone about the GPL and they think it means the software is public domain, or that it is something similar to a BSD license. Some even think that the GPL means you can't charge for software.

The fact is, the GPL is probalby more misunderstood than any commercial license, while the BSD license is incredibly straight forward

1) Retain Copyright Notices
2) Don't sue us.

Re:down with GPL

[flacco]

So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:down with GPL

[muleboy]

That is, if they don't get put off by RMS & co. ESR is doing the right thing with opensource.org (and his involvement with Mozilla) to work together with companies and solve their problems.

I agree that ESR is doing good things, and there is no doubt that RMS can be a turn-off, especially for business types.

Is Mozilla copyleft or similarly restricted? Can a company take Mozilla parts and make a closed application? I don't know. When people don't use standard licenses, I don't have the time to spend an hour trying to parse the legaleze.

I'm actually working on a compiler, so I'll check out the Jikes parser generator.

I found this in the Jikes parser generator FAQ:

The release of JikesTM Parser Generator does not establish a policy for the rest of IBM outside of Research, nor does it define a standard Source License for Research. Other Source agreements from IBM, including IBM Research, if and when they do come, are likely to be more restrictive with respect to commercial use -- we are allowing almost any use for Jikes because we believe it benefits the Java community and doesn't give away any intellectual property.

In other words, if they were afraid of giving away intellectual property, they would be using a more restrictive license such as the Qt license, or not open-sourcing at all.

Re:down with GPL

[Xylantiel]

If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so?

Because you wrote it, and you have just as much right to forbid them from selling your product as they do to forbid you from stealing a copy of theirs.

Is it not the ultimate compliment to you and an excellent way to spread good code/standards?

Ah, but with a free (lowercase) license you have relinquished control of the source to the point where you can't even be sure that they haven't completely screwed it up. You can't see what they've done to your code.

Similarly, why should application developers be barred from creating commercial apps for Linux or KDE?

This is just false. What's preventing them? They can compile AGAINST the libraries no problem, they just can't distribute modified versions of the code or it's products. But they're writing a new app so this does nothing to them.

The only reason seems a hatred of commercial developers, protecting your code from abuse and hidden extensions can be achieved with LGPL.

No the reason is to prevent a proprietary vendor from taking my code, adding 1% added value and selling it back to me. With GPL I get that 1% in exchange for giving them the 99%.

The GPL simply allows programmers to protect their work in exactly the way the previous poster indicated.

Re:down with GPL

[basic]

the MPL is kinda like LGPL but only on per source file and applies to non-libs. Parts of it can always be used in a propriatary app, but any modifications to the original source file needs to be released under MPL. Note however that MPL is not compatible with the GPL so mozilla.org is now trying to get most of its code under a MPL/GPL/LGPL take your pick licence.

Re:down with GPL

[muleboy]

So a company can make a proprietary product (no source code, not free) based on Mozilla if they just link to the libraries and don't change any of the code?

Re:down with GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong: it is possible to make money with GPL software by means of dual licensing. TrollTech does just that with the QT library: the GPL version is free for those writing free software, and the commercial version costs money to those who intend to make money off the software they produce. This sounds just as fair as can be, and also doesn't hurt the company, since you probably wouldn't fork a large ammount of money just to be able to use some library in a free software project. In this case, GPL protects the corporation by assuring that no other corporation can steal their work, while being nice to free software developers. It's a win-win situation, since they also benefit from the free marketing to the QT library provided by free software.

Re:down with GPL

[Aapje]

>If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so?

Because you wrote it, and you have just as much right to forbid them from selling your product as they do to forbid you from stealing a copy of theirs.

True, but there is a difference between having a right and being right in using it. I believe that if you put your time in (quality) open source products, you will get repaid by companies. They will put effort in open source software themselves. You will profit from that. Ultimately it's a matter of trust, I trust these companies to do the right thing. AFAIK just about every company that has taken from open source has tried to give something back. If you don't allow them to take, they won't give anything back.

Ah, but with a free (lowercase) license you have relinquished control of the source to the point where you can't even be sure that they haven't completely screwed it up. You can't see what they've done to your code.

Free Software isn't your code anymore, people can screw it up still. You can only take a look at it and weep, but you cannot prevent them from screwing up. Keep the source closed if you're paranoid, that way nobody will touch your preciouss code (that is not a typo). If you decide to trust people with your code, why not trust them to decide what code is useful for others and should be integrated in the main codebase.

This is just false. What's preventing them? They can compile AGAINST the libraries no problem, they just can't distribute modified versions of the code or it's products. But they're writing a new app so this does nothing to them.

Currently not that much. But if the infrastructure becomes GPL, companies are forced to make their code GPL as well (or rewrite the entire infrastructure). This would be the case if there was no commercial license of QT for instance. For me the infrastructure is a fundamental basis of computer science that should be available to everyone, for every use.

No, the reason is to prevent a proprietary vendor from taking my code, adding 1% added value and selling it back to me. With GPL I get that 1% in exchange for giving them the 99%.

No, if that were your goal, you would choose LGPL. That will achieve this almost perfectly. You also musn't forget the forces that oppose such a move:

1. The new product is no longer free.
2. It is no longer open source.
3. The fork is very costly to maintain.
4. The main codebase has a reputation.
5. Taking code without giving back doesn't help your reputation.
6. Who will pay for your 1% addition? Won't the main codebase seek to copy your innovations if they are useful to many?

These are very potent forces. How many BSD-products have been abused?

Ergo, GPL is usually not needed. If you consider the problems and limitations of GPL, it seems that one should try to avoid it. Certainly for infrastructure software.

The GPL simply allows programmers to protect their work in exactly the way the previous poster indicated.

I never disputed that. My argument was that the IT infrastructure should be available for commercial use as well. I also tried to show that you often do not need GPL to achieve a decent protection of your work.

Re:down with GPL

[Aapje]

Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author.

In the new BSD-license you only have to credit the author in the license that you must distribute with binary versions. There is no obligation to credit the author anywhere else.
The old one that forces you to credit the author in the docs, marketing materials, etc is obsolete and should not be used.

Most people choose BSD over PD because of two reasons. It's:
1. A nice standardized lawyer-approved notice to state that you can't be sued. This is especially important if you live in the US.
2. A known license that represents total freedom (in people's mind) and has stature. PD sounds like bad, unsupported code.

Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist.

I do believe that BSD is a license that is almost entirely free. It doesn't really force you to do anything. It only clearly states the things that you shouldn't expect (and thus may not sue over).

License change.

[miguel]

The license change only applies to the Mono Class Libraries, and the precise license that we are using is the MIT X11 license.

Miguel.

Re:License change.

[Uruk]

Miguel:

Why? I know that Ximian has to attend to the economic realities of the marketplace, but why is it that you were so sure that Intel would never go along with the GPL that you had to relicense? I realize it's still a free software license, but the MIT X11 license opens the community up to non-free forks. Anybody on the planet can now take the Mono class libraries, not even add anything and repackage it as proprietary software. What happens if Mono fails? (Somebody will pick up the class libraries, not necessarily someone with the communities best interests in mind)

Free software is great, (by the way, I'm hoping that you were misquoted in the news article that had you talking about "open source") and the MIT X11 license is fine, but it takes all of the teeth out of the software and lets anybody who wants to come along, repackage the software and steal subsequent users of their version's freedom. Why?

Re:License change.

[Anonymous Coward]

little hint: they are getting into bed with proprietary software shops while at the same time using the free software sweatshop to their advantage. This free software "utopia" is not all it seems..

Given up on Ximian

[xonker]

I've pretty much given up on Ximian. They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...) rather than keeping up with Linux (their Red Carpet service is at least one version behind for SuSE, Mandrake, no version for Slackware).

I'd really like to try Evolution, but it's a dependency nightmare from Hell to download package-by-package or from source and the Red Carpet service that's supposed to make life easy is one version behind both of the platforms that I have that I could use it on.

Meanwhile, they're spending their time trying to copy Microsoft crap for Linux with no clear way to make money on it, but giving Microsoft and other proprietary companies ample leeway to steal parts of the code or to release proprietary extensions.

Something's very wrong with this picture.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[lordsutch]

They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...)

Slam me if you like, but Gnumeric means I can keep my gradebook and track my business P/L on a free software application instead of dual-booting Windows. People need good spreadsheets and groupware to do real work.

Oh, and "apt-get install evolution-ssl" works just fine here... installing good software for Linux doesn't have to be hard, you know.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[tftp]

Ximian. They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...)

Two steps behind a leader is much better place to be than right in front of the last man running :-) What Ximian makes is needed not to geeks but to common folk (a.k.a. lusers). That's who wants Evolution. Without Windows-like apps Linux will see much more resistance everywhere. I am personally very glad that Ximian works on all that unneeded fluff and eye candy, so I can focus on some serious work.

Myself, I am very happy with Mutt, and though I tried Evolution and I have it installed... it crashes sometimes, and it is not as flexible as Mutt is. Evolution also has some codepage-related quirks which Mutt (and iconv that it uses) doesn't have.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[TurboRoot]

So why don't you use Java based groupware/spreadsheets?

.NET is Wrong and "Bad". Mono is akin to having classes to teach women methods to feel less pain when they get beat by their husbands, ignoring the fact that getting beat is a bad thing.

By supporting Mono you are giving in to M$ and really just spreading their reign. Because face it, Mono will only succeed if m$ allows it.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, because gcc only survived because MS let it.

Mono is a c# class library and compiler, it's not .Net

While Microsoft developed C#, it's now an Open Standard ie c89/c99. Microsoft controls Mono about as much as they control gcc.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are forgetting that .NET is totally worthless without Microsoft. I mean, really, how the fuck do you use a vaporware system that is for the most part contained in secret documents stored within a small company at Redmond? There is _no_ infrastructure without Microsoft. None. Nadda. Nice open source compiler, but good luck getting it to talk to Microsoft's infrastructure.

The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Ami Ganguli]

is that Intel and HP are contributing to Mono.

I find it somewhat amazing that these two would risk the wrath of Bill. HP I can almost understand, since they're in the Unix business (for now anyway), but Intel would be in big trouble if MS dropped support for Itanic in favour of AMD's Hammer.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[horster]

I don't think you understand - microsoft is probably quite happy about this. it is at the very least validation of their software.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Ami Ganguli]

I don't see how they could be happy about it. If you can substitute Linux (or other Unix) servers for MS-Windows then Microsoft becomes just another software company. They've been fighting that for fifteen years.

With .Net they're gambling that they can out-code all of their competitors (3500 classes?!!) and maintain their monopoly that way. That might even be true if everybody else acts alone, but if a few large companies help with the Open Source implementation then the MS version will become a niche product.

Imagine if a few other large companies joined the effort. If AOL, Oracle, IBM, HP, Intel, and the Open Source companies worked togother on a Free .Net implementation, then the MS version would be marginalized. Nobody would use MS-propietary extensions if it meant shutting out Oracle or AOL users.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[znu]

.NET isn't just a new development platform. It's a delivery vehicle (to use the cigarette industry's term) for subscription-based web services. What is open source's answer to this? All Mono does is provide a way for Microsoft to sell its services to non-Windows users. While the open source community worries about building a free telephone, Microsoft is setting itself up to own the phone network.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Ami Ganguli]

If that's really the plan then I say good luck to them. If they don't own the platform then they'll actually have to compete in the services market against some much more established players.

Even I might become an MS customer if I could pick and choose those compenents I liked from MS and use them alongside products from competing companies.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[mikera]

Yeah, I have to say I pretty much agree with that sentiment.

If MS make .NET a truly open platform, they will have created a level playing field and they are going to have to fight some pretty serious competition.

If the don't make .NET an open platform, then it probably won't succeed, and stuff like Mono may actually end up being the de facto standard on the low end while the Java platform mops up the enterprise end.

Either way - I don't quite see what their business plan is going to be. My suspicion is that they will try to derail compatability in a way that forces people to buy MS software "components" - if you are a developer on the .NET platform I would start watching out for trojan horses like this real soon now.....

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[toriver]

...HP are contributing to Mono

Well, HP is a "co-signer" on the C# spec that was submittetd to ECMA, so I guess they want to see a conforming implementation. :-P

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrath from Bill would be a big change. Currently Microsoft is toting Mono proudly at every conference about .NET I've been to. They seem to parallel their own efforts together, I guess as evidence that their standardization is beneficial to others. Microsoft is trying to build a platform that it agree with that it may use tomorrow to sell use of Web Services to other businesses and consumers. The platform is and should always be free, and available, otherwise the system doesn't work. Also notable is that it seems that .NET WebServices, Delphi WebSnap, Sun JavaONE, and SOAP/Apache all intercommunicate without issues.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[fredrik70]

MS seems to be quite happy about mono, they even got an interview with Miguel on msdn regarding mono..

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[sheldon]

"With .Net they're gambling that they can out-code all of their competitors "

No problem, they've historically proven that they can do this. The Java JVM that Microsoft was shipping in 1997 was the fastest in the industry, and some suspect that Sun sued Microsoft to stop them because of this.

"Imagine if a few other large companies joined the effort."

That is Microsoft's great hope.

"If AOL, Oracle, IBM, HP, Intel, and the Open Source companies worked togother on a Free .Net implementation, then the MS version would be marginalized. "

Cool. What are they going to bring to the table?

"Nobody would use MS-propietary extensions if it meant shutting out Oracle or AOL users."

That doesn't matter.

The MS proprietary extensions available for Windows will ensure that Windows remains the dominant desktop and server OS. But if you want to write something for Linux, you'll have that choice and it will be very easy to integrate it into the mix because they will communicate with one another seamlessly.

You have to remember, .Net isn't about platform independence in terms of running the same code, it is about language independence and platform interoperability on the wire.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Anonymous Coward]

is that Intel and HP are contributing to Mono.

Are they going to contribute further? There doesn't seem to be any pressure for them to do so now. Putting aside the loss of copyleft for the moment, and just talking about this in terms of practical considerations: What is Mono actually getting for this gift of a license switch? More eyeballs are potentially going to develop more code, but what is the reality when you're dealing with a license that allows proprietary derivatives? The LGPL was enough for proprietary interests to link with non-free code (simply put all the non-free code in a separate library and link that library into whatever you're shipping that uses the GPL/LGPL'd Mono class libraries).

But now Mono class libraries are MIT licensed which means the class libraries themselves can become non-free. This begs the question, what did Mono (or Ximian or de Icaza) get in exchange for this significant gift of code? And was it worth switching to a license that places Mono's developers in the position of begging proprietary interests for their improvements to Mono?

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun is out to sell hardware, dev tools, and library licenses. As long as JVMs are ubiquitous and interoperable, it doesn't matter who maintains them.

We already have language independence (JVM is far, far ahead of MSIL in variety of compilers) and wire interoperability (IIOP). .NET is nothing more than bait for an industry weary of platform-dependent interfaces, since they knew they wouldn't get away with smuggling it in through Java.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[Syberghost]

While the open source community worries about building a free telephone, Microsoft is setting itself up to own the phone network.

Is it better that there be a new phone network, and Open Source folks not be able to use it without using Windows?

everything you need to know

[slashdot2.2sucks]

http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#licensing

I Do It Wrong!!

[Big_Ass_Spork]

I do it wrong

Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.

Massaging my nutsack she....

WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!!!!

Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass. [goatse.cx]

"OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!"

"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!"

I DO IT WRONG!!!!

I continue to hump her alabaster form. Glistening with beads of sweat, she bites her lip in delight as I tear her ass open with my engorged dick.

"Queen Amidala!!" I shreik as I near climax.

She looks up at me and screams, "You are so alive in me, unlike *BSD or VA Software!!! Fill me with seed!! Yes, Yes, Yess!!!!"

"For me you are calling, hhhmmm?"

"YODA?!? What the fuck, can't you see I am using the force here?"

He savagely kicks my Natalie aside, he pulls out his large green penis and impales me...

I DO IT WRONG!!

All your sporkz are belong to the dead homiez!!

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a \ a t `. : t s` \ s e \ / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~-- \ x * \ \-~ ~-\ * g \ \ .--------.___\ g o \ \// ((> \ o a \ . C ) ((> / a t /\ C )/ \ (> / t s / /\ C) (> / \ s e ( C__)\___/ // _/ / \ e x \ \\// (/ x * \ \) `---- --' * g \ \ / / g o / \ o a / \ \ a t / / \ t s / / \/\/ s e / e x x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

Re:I Do It Wrong!!

[BankofAmerica_ATM]

This must be what you humans refer to as "art." Have you considered creating a recording of this art, perhaps in the style of the "Beatniks," with screaming, a trilling recorded, vibes, and bongos?

Licenses specifically excluding Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article mentions that Microsoft is more favorable to BSD style licenses (so they can use the code in Windows, which they did for Windows 95 TCP/IP related stuff, though AFAIK most/all has been replaced by their own code now)

So how come no one has ever used a BSD style license that specifically excludes the code from being used in code distributed by Microsoft or its subsidiaries? OK, the list of "evil companies" some people would want would grow and grow, but let's say it was limited to just Microsoft, due to their monopoly and wanting to prevent them from doing an "embrace and extend" like they did with Kerberos.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe I'm not thinking of some important drawbacks?

This is for the better...

[Joff_NZ]

I'm not to up-to-date on the details of the Mono project, but it sounds like a huge undertaking, and if getting Intel on board to lend a hand is what it's going to take to get the job done (and within reasonable time) then this is a Good Thing(tm), especially as this is a project which is taking a direct competitive stance against Micro$oft.

Sure, OSS purists (read: RMS) will get a bee under their bonnet about this, but the source remains open... you can still take the source code, make changes, release it. You also then get the additional choice of whether to open (or close) source your project.

In a perfect world we could GPL everything, but this is just not the case.

This is one of my favorate trolls...

[New Movie Troll]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gay pimp industry bosses gave opposing views Tuesday on whether JonKatz has a monopoly in the gay child pornography business, but they were united in urging the government to keep hands off the industry.

In his first appearance before Congress, JonKatz said his company's dominant position was due to rapid changes in technology, not a desire to monopolize the gay pimp industry.

"In the end, the gay child pornography industry, which contributed over $100 billion to the national economy last year, is an open economic opportunity for any entrepreneur in America," Katz told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Government control would only restrict innovation, he said.

Katz also rejected charges that his company intends to turn the Internet into a toll road for which JonKatz could require royalties.

"We have no plan to use our gay child porno browser ... to charge any type of transaction fee," he said.

"When people come to a site of ours, like boys4men.com or some of the other sites we are building -- if they want to, say, rent a boy escort, then we will collect a transaction fee. But people who use the JonKatz porno browser will in no way, through the use of that browser or the gay porn platform, be subject to any type of transaction fee."

JonKatz likened to Pac Man
Committee chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, opened the hearing by noting that JonKatz's "breathtaking growth ... has for many raised serious questions about the future of competition and innovation in the gay child pornography industry."

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, was more pointed.

"Mr. Katz, no one -- no matter how powerful-- is above the law," he said. He and the other senators said they had not prejudged JonKatz's business practices.

The JonKatz chief sat at a witness table with CEOs of other gay pimp and gay child pornography companies, including two bitter rivals -- James Barksdale of NAMBLA and Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun Pornosystems.

"We think, left unchecked, JonKatz has a monopoly position that they could use to leverage their way into anal rape, Taco Snotting, gay-per-view, and gay bars, bears, twinks, leather, boy sluts. You name it," McNealy said.

"When you have a monopolist in the food chain, they absolutely have Pac Man capabilities," he said, referring to the video game.

Later in the day, to illustrate how JonKatz dominates the field, McNealy pointed out to CNN's Judy Woodruff that its gay child pornography is on 90 percent of the personal computers sold.

"Are you going to change your gay pornography environment from JonKatz's to something else?" he said rhetorically.

"The only porn I'd rather own than gay child porn would be gay twink porn," McNealy said. "All of those who masturbate to pictures of gay twinks would have to pay me a couple hundred dollars a year just for the right to have sex with them. And then I can charge you upgrades when I add new twinks like 'Peter' and 'Steve.' It would be a wonderful business."

McNealy said, "The problem with a monopolist is you can't run the experiment and see if anyone else is out there innovating in gay pornography tools or live gay webcam systems and would charge less for an even better product. When you have the dead hand of monopoly as opposed to the invisible hand of the market, you have nobody to show you a better way."

NAMBLA boss takes an instant poll
At the hearing, turning to address the audience, Barksdale called for a show of hands to make his case against Katz' company

"How many of you use young boys in this audience, not women?" he asked. Several hands went up.

Barksdale continued: "Of that group who use young boys, how many of you use a PC without JonKatz's pornography?"

When all the hands went down, Barksdale turned to the Senate panel and said, "Gentlemen, that is a monopoly."

Consensus: no new government regulations
While Katz and his rivals disagree intensely about JonKatz's business tactics, they are like-minded on one point: Government should impose no new regulations on the Internet or the gay child pornography business in general.

"I agree with Mr. Katz' point of view," Barksdale said. "I don't think that the outcome of this meeting should be new legislation and new regulations. I don't think it's needed. And I think it would have a harmful effect. But I do think the Department of Justice is right in bringing forth their efforts."

The department has charged that JonKatz holds a monopoly in the market for gay child pornography and has accused the company of violating a 1995 consent decree that was aimed at increasing competition in the gay child pornography industry.

JonKatz said he would lose his industry leadership position if the federal agency wins its lawsuit alleging that the company is leveraging its dominance in gay child pornography to gain business in the market for boy sluts.

What the..?! What point is that part of Mono then?

[sudog]

So, let's see here, and think for a moment. Well, let me think (or some semblance thereof). You read.

Mono was designed to specifically compete with Microsoft's .NET. One thing that helped Mono keep any sort of competitiveness was the GPL--Microsoft couldn't nab some of the code if it was superior to theirs, add it to their own, and include Mono's featureset in their own product, thus ensuring their superiority. (Mono+.Net > Mono).

Now they can steal a chunk of Mono at will and include it in their own software whenever they choose. Ideas, concepts, and whatever else is included in those classes might as well be written for Microsoft, for free. Great job guys! Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it! This isn't XFree! This is a direct competitor to Microsoft!

And by the way, isn't the spirit of the rest of the components' licensing, which hopefully will remain GPL, that improvements be available to the original author? That's the whole point! Now just because they are looking for some coders from Intel to help them out suddenly GPL isn't good enough?

de Icaza, what are you doing?!

Doh!

Excellent

[Danielle Gatton]

Do whatever it takes to get a foothold now, instead of trying to play catch-up when it's too late. "About 50 people are working on Mono, five of them full-time Ximian employees, de Icaza said." Several more than 50 are working on .NET at Microsoft, I imagine. If it takes a switch to a BSD-style license to get big companies like Intel and HP on board, then hell yes, do it.

Critical mass

[Bob Loblaw]

The only way that Mono has a chance to avoid the old standard extension trick that Microsoft always plays is to get a critical mass of corporate partners to back their implementation. This license switch seems like a small price to play to get some heavy-weights onboard.

Miguel is speaking at Columbia U on Wednesday

[philgross]

...as a invited speaker by Columbia's student ACM chapter. 209 Havemeyer at 8pm.

If the slashdot readership has any questions they'd like to ask Miguel de Icaza, we can ask the highly-moderated ones during the Q&A session and report the answers back here.

Phil Gross, Columbia ACM

Re:Miguel is speaking at Columbia U on Wednesday

[nigga6]

uhh, -1 offtopic?

Miguel talking about mono this coming Wed.

[spotter]

for those of you who are going to be in new york for linuxworld, miguel is going to be giving at a talk at Columbia University this Wed.

see http://acm.cs.columbia.edu for more info

.net?

[bastard01]

If this mono thing is supposed to make vs.net code portable, then my question is would you be able to develop in all of the languages that MS has placed onto that, and possibly have it run on linux? That would be interesting to see, being able to use microsoft ultra-proprietary IDE and being able to use it on *NIX with ease. Too bad MS can now steal any part of it if it is better than the original implementation.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Glasswire]

-Intel officially supports 2 OSes, Win and Lin.
-Intel writes the fastest C/C++ and Fortran compilers and parallelization tools for Linux
-Intel is a founder of the Open Source Development Lab
-Intel is working on dozens of Linux projects including OSCAR cluster, ethernet, gig E and embedded StrongARM work.
-Itanium has over 500 applications for 3+ OSes while Hammer doesn't even have a finished OS yet.
(Just don't tell Microsoft...)

GPL competition

[shnarez]

Just as it was with KDE/QT, if it ain't GPL'd, someone will work hard and fast on their own version, in that case - Gnome, in this case - dotGNU , IIRC.

In the mean time, Microsoft is free to embrace and extend a free implementation (as in BSD-licensed, cross-platform version) of their spec. Well, their classes. Which isn't nothing. But for free.

Conspiracy theory: maybe MS paid Intel and HP to hustle Ximian to change license?

Linux is sold at CompUSA

[Anonymous Coward]

If it does work out, it might mean that you can finally buy Linux software at CompUSA.

Well, my subject title says it all. More specifically, 37th st. & 5th Ave. Manhattan, NY, over winter break.

I personally think having a support for .Net can't hurt linux.. It can only make them more prepared for more possible future trends.

Re:Linux is sold at CompUSA

[Joseph Dale]

But how many Linux applications do you see at CompUSA? Maybe a couple: WordPerfect for Linux, CodeWarrior, etc.; but the idea is that if and when major software vendors start shipping .NET apps, there will at least be a fighting chance that an application that was only intended to run on Windows will actually run on the Linux .NET runtime.

Re:Linux is sold at CompUSA

[Spoing]

But how many Linux applications do you see at CompUSA?

Let's see,

1. a multi-language and multi-platform compiler,

2. various programming tools,

   games (from board to 3D hardware accelerated),

   a couple of PIMs with handheld sync. support as well as a dozen email programs,

   various Internet and network tools (from serious to trivial),

   commercial software demos,

   graphics packages,

   personal finance,

   ...and a few office suites and assorted 'office' applications.

The only problem is that after a while, they start to run out of room on the box.

Re:Linux is sold at CompUSA

[GreyPoopon]

But how many Linux applications do you see at CompUSA?

I agree with you. I was thinking about this the other day as I was in CompUSA staring at the one little shelf of Linux OS offerings. I wondered why they didn't have any applications. Then I suddenly realized that nobody wants to pay anything for the application software. We all expect to download it free from the 'net. I include myself in "we." Maybe if we actually started BUYING some applications for Linux, they would start appearing more in stores.

Of course, we can always start the age old "Dreamweaver" thread again....

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you post that much shit, you should actually read the damn article...
You are just trying to karma whore here!

Its just the Classes you use when programming with .Net. If they were GPL every software that runs inside Mono would have to be GPL too.

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[hughk]

Duh, Mono is not competinting with .NET. It is an Open Source alternative which allows access from more platforms.

It has been stated before that Mono does appear on the MSFT radar, but at the moment, it is seen as benign. Maybe this will change, but so what for the moment.

A BSD or MIT license is appropriate to encourage adoption. Yes, I'm certain if MSFT see good ideas then they will steal them, but please remember that they have already implemented all of their classes and they are extremely proprietary. However, what everyone is interested in is Mono being adopted on Unix platforms. Once it has been adopted, then it woud be possible to improve it using GPL'ed software.

Ximian are now doomed, ideology of free software !

[Anonymous Coward]

Ximian are prepared to sell their values to get a few extra developers from intel and HP, then they can forget about ever getting my support (if they care).

If they get short on moeny i now question how much they would sellout into a totally non-free license.

In the long term, the ideology of free software than the current implementation.

Perhaps microsoft have subverted ximian ?

DotGNU Portable.NET

[rhysweatherley]

With this decision, all of the Mono components are now non-Free, or can be made non-Free at any moment. In this message, Miguel makes it clear that Ximian wants to own the Copyright to the engine and C# compiler also, so they can change the license on that whenever they see fit.

This leaves DotGNU Portable.NET as the only true Free Software project tackling the implementation of the CLR, C# compiler, C# class library, etc.

http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html .

We are looking for developers to help us build our system into a truly-Free implementation. Portable.NET has been around longer than Mono, and remains true to the principles of Free Software.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[manyoso]

Rhys,

You are way off here. Could you please point to one piece of Mono which is not licensed under a free license? I think it is despicable that you would choose to capitilize on this anouncement by declaring the Mono project to be _Non Free_! What are you on? The Mono licenses are all _Free Software_ licenses. Would you also label every XFree, BSD and a whole host of other great free software projects as non-free? Yes, Ximian could choose to dual license Mono with a proprietary license, but there would always remain a free alternative.

You should be ashamed of using just so much FUD to promote your own implemention. How about competing on the merits instead of trolling for publicity?!

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[miguel]

The Mono runtime is released under the LGPL.
The compiler is released under the GPL.
The class libraries are released under the X11 license.

The X11 license is a free software license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11 License.
It is also an Open Source license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.ht ml

All of it free software.

If they were not `truly free software' we would have bigger problems (someone would have to start a reimplementation of X11, telnet, Kerberos, Expat, LibXML, Mesa GL, ftp, Tcl/Tk, BIND, DNS, and anything else released under the X11, the Ousterhout or the BSD licenses, because they are in essence the same thing).

Miguel

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Arandir]

...or can be made non-Free at any
moment.

Hah! Hah! Hah! You're so full of it the roto-rooter man is jealous.

Let's say I have an MIT-X11 program sitting on my ftp site. How, just how, can anyone make it non-free? They could of course download their own copy, build it, and distribute the resulting binary source-less. But that non-free binary will be on their ftp site, not mine. My copy is still 100% free.

You know, if you were correct, Bill Gates could stop Linux in its tracks in a heartbeat. All he would have to do is relicense XFree86 under a proprietary license, and suddenly it's no longer free. You have have to pay royalties to Microsoft to use any GUI on Linux. But guess what? That's not the way the world works. Bill Gates could do all sorts of evil and heinous things to his *copy* of XFree86, but his filthy hands will never touch my copy, your copy, or the copy at ftp.xfree86.org.

Frankly, if someone wants to use a non-free binary instead of my free binary that comes with source code, that's *their* decision.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[rhysweatherley]

Mono will only be truly Free when you make a public commitment never, ever, to change the license to something that is incompatible with the wishes of the community. Yet, you still maintain the right to change Mono's license any way you see fit at any moment.

Sure, Copyright law may allow you to do this, but that is a technicality. I have made a strong commitment to DotGNU and the GNU Project to *never* change the license in a way which may harm the community's interests. Will you do the same?

Free Software is more than just using a GPL-compatible license. It also entails that all future uses of the software remain Free, in all respects. The X11 license does not preserve this freedom, as it allows components to be proprietrised.

Ximian is putting pragmatism ahead of the community by bowing to Intel and HP in this.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[footility]

The potential problem with non-GPL free licenses
is that development may be derailed by a rogue
commercial entity. Please read the following
message to the zebra mailing list, and explain what
assurances we, the community, have that relicensing
parts of Mono will not cause it's fate to be the
same as gated.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=zebra&m=101212 675308051&w=2

(note: I'm /not/ a license nazi, but after I
read that message, it makes me /more/ a believer
that GPL is superior to BSD-like licenses.)

b

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[rhysweatherley]

The X11 license is a non-copyleft license. As such, it does not guarantee that future versions remain free.

While it is true that there are no Mono components that are currently under a non-free license, Ximian has made no guarantee to the community that this will remain the case. I have.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[manyoso]

"Ximian has made no guarantee to the community that this will remain the case. I have."

And I, for one thank you for this guarantee. I think you have done a hell of a good job with the Portable.NET project, but I don't think this is the time to go around labeling your project as the only Truly Free^TM .NET implementation. If Ximian does decide to pull a SourceForge in the future then I will be the first to call for a fork, but as it stands this decision does nothing to endanger Mono, in fact it would make it more difficult for Ximian to dual license because the code is now essentially public domain.

Let's be absolutely clear. Ximian is _not_ taking the code proprietary. In fact they are easing the restrictions to the source. In effect Ximian is giving up control of the Mono modules. Now, if this is a problem for individual developers (Ximian take note: it may very well be.) then by all means they should release under the LGPL, GPL, modified GPL, fork the code, or do as they wish. What I object to you is you using this issue to promote your project to the detriment of Mono by labeling it as not Truly Free^TM. You sound much more reasonable when you point out the legitimate differences between the projects.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

Mono will only be truly Free when you make a public commitment never, ever, to change the license to something that is incompatible with the wishes of the community. Yet, you still maintain the right to change Mono's license any way you see fit at any moment.

Fella, you make RMS look like a voice of moderation.

RMS certainly prefers using the GPL, but he would never go so far as to claim that X11-licensed code is not "truly free".

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Zigg]

With this decision, all of the Mono components are now non-Free, or can be made non-Free at any moment.

That's kinda funny, because when I read this story, the first thing I thought was "hey, Mono is now truly free, instead of only qualifiedly so".

Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Rascalson]

And to be sure the convicted monopolist will help them make those decision's. Also, you can be sure he will try and get his copy legislated as the one true XFree86. He may even eventually claim that he created it. Funny though, how easily the GPL stops stuff like that.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[danov]

Portable.NET has been around longer than Mono, and remains true to the principles of Free Software.

Don't get me wrong, but what prevents the copyright holders of this project from changing their minds, too?

Ultimately, releasing a particular piece of software under the GPL or another license won't guarantee that it will stay that way; the copyright holder can always change its mind. It's not the first time I hear someone complain that allowing such and such company to work on a piece of software "doesn't guarantee that it'll remain free, so we must make our own version".

While it might seem like a worthy goal, it also seems to me like it's a duplication of effort and also ultimately shows a distrust when it comes to corporate involvement with free software. This last part is especially bad in my opinion, because corporate-funded free software development really has the potential to benefit everyone. But for some reason many Linux and free software users still don't like private companies meddling with their toys.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what Rhys refers to here is the simple fact that Ximian requires all their contributors to surrender copyright to Ximian and to trust what Ximian will do in the future. I have no issue surrendering copyright to an organization I can trust, but if I had contributed to those class libs with the expectation they would remain protected under the GPL or maybe LGPL, I would be hopping mad.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[crush]

So does that mean that if a developer spends time contributing to Mono he is guaranteed that his work will never be incorporated into a closed, proprietary product?

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[elflord]

Also, you can be sure he will try and get his copy legislated as the one true XFree86. He may even eventually claim that he created it. Funny though, how easily the GPL stops stuff like that

If he can get his copy "legislated as the one true XFree86", he can probably not only squash the GPL in court, but also fly, leap tall buildings in a single bound, and breathe fire.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[msouth]

I'm sorry, but this kind of posting is NOT ALLOWED on Slashdot. First, it is concise. Second, well reasoned. Third, you referenced and linked to BOTH "free software" definitions and "open source" definitions.

I don't think you realize what you are doing here. For one thing, you are supposed to come down hard on one side or the other. You are really going to tweak peoples' paradigms if you start bringing things up that indicate COMPATIBILITY between the Open Source and free software camps.

For another thing, you aren't supposed to be informative and clear on stuff. Look, just take a cue from the editors. They can take the simplest little news story, not read it, and post it here with one-sided innuendo and a headline implying some sinister plot. That is the very stuff that Slashdot thrives on. And here you, in all your arrogance, think that you can just post one concise informative message and defuse all that the editors and people posting replies have worked so hard to build?

I move that we create a new moderation category-- -1 unSlashdotlike. If we can't create controversy where none exists, I ask you, where would Slashdot be? Hmmm? And you, with your simple statement of the facts and links back to the sources, you are exactly the kind of element that is going to ruin this place for the rest of us.

Sigh. Kids these days, I tell ya...

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Rascalson]

WOW!!! You seem to get the whole, sick, un-adultrated, make-me-want to-puke Truth!

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

and that sound, boys and girls, is the sound of a man with his lips stuck firmly to another man's ass.

HOW TO TROLL SLASHDOT

[The BOFH Troll]

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

• Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The right-wing

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

   • Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
   
   

that article should be modded -1 troll

[kubla2000]

... or perhaps flamebait?

How can a professional journalist be so irresponsible as to write things like:

Ximian, a company working to improve the Linux operating system for ordinary computer users, has made a philosophical shift in a key new open-source software project that now will be governed by a less restrictive license [emphasis added].

and:

Mono would allow Linux and Unix systems to host Web services and to tap into Web services on other servers.

Re:that article should be modded -1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

um, it is a less restrictive license. How would you prefer he worded it?

Re:that article should be modded -1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

you may be a fuckin retard.

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[hughk]

I fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community.

Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Ami Ganguli]

True enough. I knew about most of those, although not all. But this is a little different. It's one thing to support an alternative technology, but Mono is a direct frontal attack. If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Glonk]

If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.

Except when they're charging for the service provided by .NET, not the actual .NET framework per se.

If there's OpenSource clients for .NET, that's just more potential customers for MS. Who cares if the client programs may be written by someone else, the service still links back to MS.

/. moderators are getting stupider...

[Anonymous Coward]

What idiots mismoderated this "Insightful"?

It's INFORMATIVE, dammit! Maybe even "Interesting", if you swing that way, but "Insightful"?

Apparently some moderators wouldn't know "Insightful" if it bit them in the ass!

/rant

Re:/. moderators are getting stupider...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, guess what. You are modded Insightful

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[Zenin]

You're making the assumtion that there is much/any improvement on MS's part to the BSD TCP/IP stack code.

What do you want "passed back"? Windows itself? If you're a GPL advocate, the answer of course is, "YES! A small fragement of Windows used our code so now we should by RIGHT have full and complete access to everything that is Windows!".

But that's an even sillier argument then it sounds out loud...

If possibilities like MS using the BSD network stack kept BSD developers up at night, they wouldn't be developing BSD licensed code. If such things do keep you up at night, then you shouldn't consider writing free software, and thus probably use the GPL.

Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, what's up with this monkey business? Ximian mating a Godzilla?

RMS Objects...

[Graelin]

... and in other news, RMS renounces the use of XML as a standard as not all parsers are free...

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[__past__]

And that has hurt the BSD community how, again?

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[krogoth]

However, Microsoft did not hurt BSD by using their network stack. If MS had not told anyone that they used the BSD network stack, the situation today would be exactly the same.

GNU FUD

[__past__]

can be made non-Free at any moment

Sorry, but while this argument is quite commonly used to propagate the GPL, I think it's plain wrong. Nobody can make any Mono component, or any other Free-and-not-copylefted code, non-free. There is no "taking away our freedom".

All that is possible is to release derived work without a Free license. It's not as if the original Free code would go away. You do not lose anything - you just do not get more. That's quite a difference.

Re:GNU FUD

[rhysweatherley]

All that is possible is to release derived work without a Free license. It's not as if the original Free code would go away. You do not lose anything - you just do not get more. That's quite a difference.

The danger is always that the derived work becomes more extensively supported than the free parts of it. Then it doesn't matter how free the free parts are, because they are useless without the non-free parts. GPL prevents this from occurring. X11 does not.

Re:GNU FUD

[Speare]

All that is possible is to release derived work without a Free license. It's not as if the original Free code would go away. You do not lose anything - you just do not get more. That's quite a difference.

The danger is always that the derived work becomes more extensively supported than the free parts of it.

So, why would badly supported source code deserve to win over well-supported binaries?

If in the marketplace, the code in the GPL is ignored in favor of completely closed original code, how does this benefit anyone? The GPL project then becomes an academic exercise while the closed original code becomes a market force.

Instead, if open BSD code is "stolen" (hah), closed, and even distorted, then this means that everyone has access to an implementation that is very similar to the de facto standard, and can even track or dismiss observable differences if the closed source dominates the market (as BSD TCP/IP has done). Everyone benefits.

The GPL is about rights and control. A patent tries to spur innovation by forcing people out of the copy-me-too rut. The GPL "spurs" innovation by forcing market leaders to ignore valuable code and write their own closed standards (or steal the valuable code and erase the fingerprints).

Personally, the BSD or Artistic licenses make more sense to me. If I write something cool, I want the massive market leaders to leverage it and turn my ideas into market standards. I let everyone else play with the source code, so everyone can play with the market standards.

Re:GNU FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

If the marketplace is that stupid, then so be it - but I'm not willing to give them my work to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Weird... MS' .NET is closed source but...

[Otis_INF]

no-one complains, as a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of developers have downloaded the .NET SDK and/or the VS.NET RTM release.

Perhaps people should focus more on what you can DO with .NET and Mono instead of political crap as to which license is 'true Open Source' and 'because it's now XFree I won't touch it'.

You can all crawl towards DotGNU, but it is in the early stages of development and will come too late. If you want a .NET platform equivalent on Linux, support Mono, otherwise BECAUSE Linux won't have a .NET equivalent, the platform will die.

Re:Weird... MS' .NET is closed source but...

[blank]

okay, since no one is complaining about .NET, I'll be the first. *cough cough*.

i'm worried about .NET. MS's history with it's partners is about as fair as having a knife in your back while MS takes your wallet. the cut throat tatics that they use to buy or kill competition has given them a very profitable monolpoly. this has given end users a common platform and standard to use. which is , again, as good as having a knife to your back, since (like in the past) they've use it for their benefit. to be fair, they are doing this for consumers. heh.

another thing, linux isn't going to die just because it doesn't have a .NET solution. SUN has more to fear. SUN relies on money and services to compete. linux doesn't, it's free software. it will only faulter if geeks ceased to exist. for example, if if red had died, there will still be debian or at least slackware.

.NET can burn in hell, but i agree about not taking the license too seriously. it's still open source, which isn't as strict as "free", but we get to see the code and use it. which means a lot to me since i can then use it for OS X and maybe, just maybe learn a thing or two.

Re:Weird... MS' .NET is closed source but...

[Nicolas MONNET]

You imply that .NET will be succesful; this remains to be proven. .NET (and C#) is competing with the Java plaftorm. There's thousands of applications, libraries, freely available source code, there's millions of Java programmers out there ... so it's not exactly as likely as you seem to think.

Re:Weird... MS' .NET is closed source but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer to have freedom slowly before enslavement quickly. If speeding to beat .Net means that we have to give up our freedom, then I will not partake.

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[Arandir]

Ideas, concepts, and whatever else is included in those classes might as well be written for Microsoft, for free.

Yeah, so what? I mean seriously, so what?

Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it!

Since I don't have to pay to get Mono, Miguel is working for me for free. I like that. It's cool. I don't have to pay Miguel a damn thing to get Mono. So if Miguel is working for me for free, why can't he work for Bill Gates for free at the same time?

Or is Free Software not the issue here, and you could care less what the software is as long as someone you don't like gets screwed?

Back up this claim with evidence.

[Carnage4Life]

Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.

This claim is one of those internet myths that has festered on Slashdot that has never been conclusively proved.

However this myth has been debunked in an article by a former Microsoft employee that explains with really happened?

Secondly, unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities but instead is the optimal way to provide utility to users of software. Even if MSFT uses a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack, this would mean that improved networking has benefitted millions of computer users who use MSFT Windows and couldn't handle BSD boxen. The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software and not an attempt to bend the software industry to the world view of a dissaffected MIT computer science professor.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not like to be exploited when the others make money out of it. If nobody makes money out of it, I'm OK with that, as long as my name is mentioned.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[thallgren]

I also remeber that post by the Microsoft employee. But a while ago I read this and now I don't know what do believe:

In fact, until Windows 2000 (which has a BSDI ported stack that cost them ~$3M in fees), the Microsoft stacks routinely violated the RFCs on connection closing

Regards, Tommy

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[ajs]

From your cited MS source:

"I won't even swear on a stack of bibles that the "new" TCP/IP now shipping in NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me is completely free of the old code from Spider. Since I don't work there I don't have access to the source code. Certainly some parts of TCP (the checksum calculation comes to mind) are the same everywhere and once someone has written an optimized version, why rewrite it? And once again, this would be perfectly legitimate for Microsoft to do under the license."

Nuff said.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spider is not BSD you flaming idiot.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back up this claim with evidence.

Look, it hardly matters whether Microsoft uses a BSD "stack" or not. The point is that they have used code from BSD, and have not returned it. No one seriously denies this.

$ strings C:\\WINDOWS\\FTP.EXE | grep California
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[fanatic]

This claim is one of those internet myths that has festered on Slashdot that has never been conclusively proved.

Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing.

1. use ftp to transfer the ftp.exe files from winblows to any *nix. (Don't forget the bin option. MS defaults to ASCII.)
   
2. Issue the following commands, get the following results.
   
   # strings ftpNT.exe |fgrep -i regents
   
   @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
   
   # strings ftp98.exe |fgrep -i regents
   
   @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
   
   

How the fuck did the comment I'm responding to get to be a score:5? Dimbulb moderators abound.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

And why would anyone want it back?
Propogation of a library into commercial land simply means it's easier for Open Source applications to be ported to that platform.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[blank]

but it can't be true! MS never told me about it!

;)

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[cobar]

I guess you can't read. He was refuting the claim that there is BSD code in the TCP/IP stack, not in the utilities. If you bothered to read the article rather than instantly flame, you'd realize that.

Quoted from parent:
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[fanatic]

unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities

Well that's nice, but if you capitalize, as in "Free Software", you are apparently referring the Free Software Foundation. And Stallman does get to define what that is "for", at least for those who work with him and use his license. And Stallman's concern is the Free software stay Free, and that the work that went into creating it not be absorbed to the benefit of some corporation.

Don't like it? Then don't incorporate GPL'd source code into your programs. Simple.

The Open Source movement, and the BSD communities are a separate issue.

The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software

Well, the MIT license is apparently similar and look what MSFT did with Kerberos - made a version of their own that has many of the features, but does NOT interoperate. This closed code is being used against Samba.

Programmers (should) get to decide how their code will be used, but I for one would be furious if I worked on the open implementation of Kerberos, then saw scumbags like MS use it the way they used MS-Kerberos to increase vendor lockin.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[hughk]

First, the company is called Microsoft Inc. MSFT is the short form for the securities issed by Microsoft. You aren't perchance a shareholder, are you?

If you go back to that article, you see that the person concerned has no current access to source code, however they admit that the early code was BSD related. Many of the utilities still have BSD copyright strings in them.

As for the benefits, this is debatable as the editors here would agree (whenever they get DOSed from a Windows box where the owner isn't even aware that their system has been broken in to. By the release of insecure code that can not easily be fixed. By distributing such code, they have done the world a disservice.

What concerns me though, is the embrace/extend policy. For example, look at what happened to Kerberos. Their security extensions are sufficiently outside public domain as to hinder interoperability.

Actually, I note that Ximian is careful about its relations with Microsoft and is careful about how they license their code. I support what they have done with the classes, but hope that the rest of the code that is currently GPL'ed remains so.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the benefits, this is debatable as the editors here would agree (whenever they get DOSed from a Windows box where the owner isn't even aware that their system has been broken in to. By the release of insecure code that can not easily be fixed. By distributing such code, they have done the world a disservice.

The Carnage4Life guy responds with valid points and all you have to spout is mindless zealotry. Only a fool would think there are more r00ted and 0wn3d Windows computers than Linux/Unix computers on the internet. The other shit about Microsoft's insecure code has nothing to do with them using BSD code or not except that it probably makes their code more secure since the BSD guys right tight code.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[tdelaney]

Why should RMS be able to dictate to me what "Free Software" is? AFAIK the Free Software Foundation has no legal standing here in Australia.

So far as I am concerned, "Free Software" (with whatever capitalisation you want) imposes no restrictions on its use. Thus it can be public domain, or BSD, or closed-source binary-only.

OTOH there is also "freeware" which is given away with no payment. Much GPL software comes under this, however much software that falls under this category then tries to restrict what I do with it - including all GPL software.

These are my own personal definitions. Others may agree or disagree with them, but they may *not* create their own definition and declare it as the only one. When I see "Free Software" defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (the official Australian dictionary) *then* I will use the meaning defined there. If it ever gets in though, I think you will find it is given multiple definitions.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[ajs]

Anonymous Coward: "Spider is not BSD you flaming idiot."

From the cited article (the link to which I was responding): "some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix"

If we're to believe this "Microsoft insider", here, then the conclusion is pretty clear. As usual, MS bought their technology (standard business practice for most large corporations), but they were unhappy with it. They re-wrote much of it, but left the parts that it did not make sense to re-invent. Plus, they largely did not touch the utilities.

None of this should be suprising, nor is it a bad thing. In fact, herein lies the power of Open Source. It also shows Microsoft's true colors, however. They brought a TCP/IP stack to market much faster than they otherwise would have because of OSS (not to mention their browser, which is based on Mosaic), but now you hear them decrying such software as dangerous and "viral" (yes, they paint the whole OSS industry with the same brush, regardless of license).

You may find these facts distasteful. I do too. However, that's no reason to complain about my facts without checking your own.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS never claimed Opensource to be bad, but the GPL. Last I checked the BSD license was still considered open source.

Remember.

GPL != opensource

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[ajs]

Wow, the mis-information is flowing like water around here. I guess this will be my last comment on this thread, since it's getting rather old, but...

Quote the AC, "MS never claimed Opensource to be bad, but the GPL."

Sorry, wrong again. Next time, try citing some references.

"But there also are elements to be avoided" in the OSS model, said Mundie, "such as a strong possibility of unhealthy forking, interoperability concerns and significant licensing issues." Forking is when the code base for a piece of software splits into separate directions, essentially becoming two or more different pieces of software.

I have not altered a single letter. This is a direct quote from Microsoft.

Please note that only one of the three concerns noted here is related to the GPL. No, Microsoft wants to paint the entire community of Open Source with one brush. GPL=Bad. Source=Bad. OSS=Bad....

They're not only wrong, but their use of OSS (e.g. BSD networking, Mosaic as the foundation for IE) makes it pretty clear that they are being two-faced about this.

Re:Back up this claim with evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Readit it and know it - Forking = Bad

FORKING IS BAD!

Happens all the time in linux/unix land.

most of you kiddies don't know about the nasty UNIX wars, coming soon to your favorite Linux Distro...

And don't forget J2EE AppServers. Who really thinks that iPlanet isn't going to have some inside info onwhat is next up to be compatible...I mean Sun lost 420 Millionlst quarter -s opposed to making that much the year before...and now not supporting Intel chips...

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[virtigex]

Clearly, what is needed here is a MIT-style license that specificly excludes Microsoft, since that's what everybody is worried about. I'm not quite sure whether I'm saying this is jest, since I suspect it might appeal to many people in this forum. Here's a first stab at it, taken from the MIT license.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person, other than an employee or agent of Microsoft Corporation, obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Disclaimer...

Well, we predicted it

[Gopal.V]

(Mono+.Net > Mono). A more disturbing thought, discussed on DotGNU list, about Mono bringing out a proprietary version (anybody remember "Exchange Connector ")

DotGNU mailing List Archive -- the stupid lameness filter is not allowing me to post the actual mail. Search for Ximian there and read Martin Coxall's comments on our reaction

Microsoft can't really hurt Intel

[Harbinjer]

If they drop support for Itanium, people just won't use windows! When switching from one architecture to another, it isn't a big stretch to switch OS's as well. At this point I don't think the Microsoft would try dropping support. Applications have to be ported to EPIC anyway, it isn't too far to port to EPIC Linux than 64-bit Windows.

So they might be shooting intel, but shooting through their own foot!

Re:Microsoft can't really hurt Intel

[Ami Ganguli]

The problem is that people don't buy software to go with their hardware, they buy hardware that runs their software.

For the next few years, at least, MS can push the desktop market wherever it wants. If the next generation of Windows only ran on MIPS, then MIPS would be the next big thing.

On the server side they don't have as much power, but Itanium has been a flop so far. Certainly you don't need Itanium to build a high-end Linux box. If MS ported Windows to some other 64-bit platform then there would be no compelling reason for anybody to support Intel.

Re:Microsoft can't really hurt Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the fact that Intel is the only vendor that can supply the number of chips required to sustain the market.

Which License Represents True Freedom?

[istartedi]

My answer: None of the above. The very fact that all these different licenses exist--including the GPL--that represents true freedom.

Yeah, this is just another statement of the O'Reilly "freedom to choose your license" statement. So what.

Yes, the GPL has an agenda. Stuff that my friends have been telling me I'm paranoid... it's being confirmed. Come to think of it, since 9-11, the paranoids have been vindicated to a degree. I must say though, publishing software under the GPL is nowhere near as bad as say... marketing fuel-grade ethanol as a beverage or selling "herbal remedies" that are in fact potent medicines with potentially fatal side effects from long term usage.

GPL can defend itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Other (non-GPL) give software freedom as in liberty, but they dont give it the ability to defend itself.

The GPL is the best license for make the software free and protecting the software from being abused by freeriders (such as mac and the BSD licence)

BSD and other less restrictive licences than the GPL are so lax they are not in best interests of software, the software will be abused by freeloader corperations such as mac.

PEOPLE TRUST THE GPL TO PROTECT THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS BY NOT ALLOWING FREELOADERS TO EXPLOIT THEM.

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[tunah]

Mono+.Net > Mono

Should that be Mono + .net >= Mono? I have seen no real evidence that .net is non-zero.

I know mono is real (i can *download* it), but .net seems a bit more complex. I think the real part of .net is the developers toolkit, while the imaginary part is the passport stuff that no-one will ever use.

Complex numbers have no intrinsic order, but the inequality could be |Mono+.net|>|mono|. Fortunately this means that if they are a disaster, then the magnitude of microsofts disaster will be bigger than mono's!

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[Anonymous Coward]

Should that be Mono + .net >= Mono? I have seen no real evidence that .net is non-zero.

Hrm, I must have been imaginging that Visual Studio.NET DVD that arrived in the mail a month ago.

What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please tell me what this has to do with kiddie porn!?!? I came here for kiddie porn, dammit! Someone sent me this link and promised me over 30 GB of kiddie porn!!! Where's my god-damned fucking kiddie porn, damn it!!! I want it now!!

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck! Someone sent me here telling me the site hosted over 50,000 Anime/tentacle-rape images! What a fucking gyp!! What is this site, anyway? Looks like some kind of homosexual computer enthusiast site. What the fuck is a "Linux"? Some kind of gay plug-in for Windows?

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was some kind of horse-penis fetish site. I mean, "Slashdot"? If that doesn't make you think of big ol' horse penises, I don't know what does. Looks like they tricked us all.

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression it was an anal-gerbil-stuffing support group! I think we've all been had. The question is... by whom?

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit! Someone named John Cats (or something like that) told me the same thing! He said the owner of this site has some kind of Japanese preteen schoolgirl fetish and posts thousands of tentacle-sex pics every day. I come here and... where are the tentacle pics!? The alien-rape almost-kiddie-porn anime!!! I don't even see a good bukkake spooge-fest collection!! I mean, c'mon!!! You let me down, Cats!!!!!!!!

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy named Homo (or Hemo or something like that) told me to come here if I wanted to fuck fat chicks-with-dicks. I think I've been let down, too.

Re:What the --?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the place I'm supposed to come for latex goat pornography? I could really go for some hardcore latex goat pornography right about now.

This page would look better if it was wider

[Anonymous Coward]

I had just turned 18, and was working hard on the school swim team in my last year of High School.

I groaned as I slowly walked down

the hall to the locker room. It had been one hell of a practice today and I hurt in places where I didn't even know I had muscles. I dropped my stuff on the bench and slowly ambled down the hall to the showers. I went to the only warm shower and went to turn it on when I heard a small whimpering sound like that of a lost puppy. I looked around and over in a dark corner sat Jim. He was the captain of our swim team. I knew Jim better than some because we both had the same birthday, a piece of novelty that brought us together, joking from time to time. He was the best swimmer I knew and he was in the corner crying. I tried to figure out what was going on, and then I realized. He was ineligible. Life was really sucking for him right now. He had failed 2 out of his 6 classes meaning that for the rest of his senior year he could not swim. His senior year, when he was at the peak of his swimming ability, down the tubes!
I went over to the corner and placed my arm around the huddled mass of quivering Jim. I took a moment and realized just what a good swimmer he really was. I tried to cajole him but he relentlessly cried and just moaned. I asked him what was wrong, as if I didn't already know. He turned his sweet face towards me and cursed. "I've fucked up. I have thrown away my life. I cant go to college. I wont even graduate this year. I will have to come to school again next year with your class." That made sense. Jim didn't have grades that were good enough for him to get into college. He was depending solely on his swimming talent, but who would pick up a swimmer who wasn't eligible to swim? I turned his face towards mine and looking into his deep penetrating eyes. I told him that it would be OK.
He did something that truly shocked me. He pulled his head up and gave me an electrifying kiss. I was shocked that the most manly person I knew, oh captain my captain, was kissing me. I of course had heard the rumors around school. Ohh, big Jim was gay. But this Adonis of a man could not TRULY be gay. Sure he made all his own clothes. Sure the way that his Calvin Klein glued to his butt showed off his huge package. Yeah and he may flirt with girls.. but what has ever come of that. He was a virgin.. as far as the world knew. That showed that he had morals, values.. But, did it mean that Jim, ... gay? NO WAY.
He looked at my shocked face and tried to scramble away. He only cried worse. He had figured that I was gay also, which is half true. It was all a remarkable turn of events. I had just come out to a bunch of my friends. A total of 13 people knew I was a bisexual. 10 females and 3 males... But no one could have told him that I was BI. They wouldn't have... Or would they?
I looked at Jim and truly assessed him. He was tall about 6'1 and weighed no more than 160. He wore only a skimpy boxer shorts style pair of drag short speedo. They beautifully accented his nice ass that I so longed to rub and kiss. I looked down and they gave a tantalizing view of his beautiful bubble butt. His chest was accented with two lovely round black nipples that set upon his wide pecs. He had surely been working out for a long, long time to get them so big. His broad shoulders moved into a beautiful V shape that funneled down into his glorious love pit. He was not the hairiest of men, but neither was I, and after last weeks shaving there was just the shortest of stubble on both of us. I looked into his face. His smooth brown skin was accented by his beautiful brown eyes. He was not a perfect boy. He had little imperfections, but nothing like I do. He had a messed up front tooth.. but that was all that I could ascertain was wrong with him.
I looked at my own, less than perfect body. I was an average dumpy person. I had brown hair that hung seductively around my face. It accented my pale white skin and highlighted my slim face. I was a short, only 5'8 to his 6'1. I had nowhere near the perfect 12 pack that he did, but I looked at my flat stomach and broad round nipples. I was average, he was not. I turned back to him and did the unthinkable.
I nudged his nose with mine and cocked my head momentarily to the side. I shoved my tongue swiftly into his warm mouth and wrestled with his tongue for a few brief moment. I slid my hands down his back to his cute ass that I had longed to caress for the longest time. I broke the kiss and told him that everything WOULD be OK.
At that moment we heard the rest of the team enter the locker room. They started their baying calls of grunts and moans as we typically did. The words of sex and 'deez' arose in a chorus as they gleefully played, snapping each other with towels. I stood up, invited Jim back to my place after practice. I adjusted my cock in my swim suit so that it wasn't so noticeably hard. He smiled warmly and thanked me for my comfort. I helped him up and he walked into the other room and got changed. I went once again and stood under the warm shower head. Just think. Only 2 minutes before I was still a virgin in mind, body and spirit. I was about to loose my virginity in so many ways later that night.
We got strange looks from other teammates as I told coach that I would drive Jim home. It was understandable, I was just trying to help a guy who was having a bad day... Right? I had no ulterior motive... Did I? Ohh but I did my friend. I helped Jim into my 1969 orange/red Porsche. Yes... that is what I wanted to do... huh.. 69.. (~. I popped the clutch, revved the engine, and pulled the stick into reverse, all the while imagining doing all these things to Jim.
We sped down the highway gaining distance from the school, and the swim team. I looked over at Jim and he had a forlorn look on his face. Poor boy, he was probably doubting his sexuality. I reached over and softly caressed his shoulder. He was wearing that light blue shirt, that was 4 sizes to small. It accented his pecs and drove me WILD!
He turned and smiled. He leaned over and put his head against my chest. I told him that we were making a quick stop at my house before I would take him home. I mentioned that my parents had gone out of town for the weekend, and, if he liked, he could spend the night. It was Friday night, neither of us had any other plans then that practice, so he quickly agreed. I handed him my cell phone and he called his overly protective mother and got permission.
I pulled into my garage and turned off the car. I motioned for Jim to come inside and wwshowed him into my castle. Well it wasn't really a castle, but I pride myself in my house. I thought Jim could really appreciate it. He was kind of a retro-man and.. well.. my house was VERY retro! I gave him the grand tour and final ended up in my bedroom, just where I wanted to be.I turned on my CD player and filled the room with the rhythm of 311. We sat down together on my bed and talked. He explained his frustration with school and with himself. We then gradually moved toward his sexuality. We both talked about how we had discovered out our sexuality. I tried to express to him that it was ok.. and JUST because you were gay/bi that it didn't mean you were damned to hell! Or any of that shit.He stared into my eyes, and I decided to make my move. I leaned forward and kissed him. He let a sigh of relief escape him and took up my offer. We started probing our tongues in and out, seeking to play a little tonsil hockey. As we continued to kiss, I decided to let my hands do the talking.I moved over so that he was sitting on my bed, and I had a knee on either side of him. I slid my hands up his shirt and began to delicately play with his broad black nipples. My tongue flicked on his broken tooth. Before I thought it was something annoying, an imperfection. But now, I looked at it through a whole new light.That reminded me. I pulled myself off of him and turned off my bedroom light. It was too glaring in its present state. I lit a couple of candles I had just randomly lying around my room. Ahh this would be nice! It gave the room an extra ambience for what was to lie ahead.I returned to my place on the bed and slowly began to stip off Jim's clothing one piece at a time. For now, he was my god and I was going to worship his beautiful body. I took off his shirt and kissed my way down his neck to his right nipple. I began to lick and nibble it until it was a hard, and erect stone. I then moved over to the other on and gave it the same service. I moved even father and snuggled into his happy trail. I licked my way all over his 6 pack tasting sweat, chlorine, and something else. Something I had never tasted before.. Well I will find out what that was later.I then removed his pants and looked to what my god possessed. His CK's were tented with an amazing potency. The cock inside those shorts was probably a beauty, the longest I will probably ever encounter. That would have to wait though. I went down to his toes. Kissing, and massaging his sore toe and calves. The light dusting of hair tickled my nose as I made my way along his legs, until... well, I had delayed this special moment long enough. I put a thumb on either side of his CK's and gently pulled down those shorts letting the family jewels loose.There was a barely audible pop as his hard cock smacked his 6 pack. I gazed at Jim's perfect body. Now presented to me in all its glory. His cock was at least 8 inches long. It was extemely beautiful in that was shaped like a beer can. It was extemely thick. His love muscle was uncut, but you could barely tell because the foreskin was stretched so tightly back. His rod was outlined with another soft dusting of hair that made up his pubes. Now don't under estimate it, it was a beautiful thing! In all its glory it stood looking at me, anticipating my next move.I took the black hunks' sex into my mouth, licking the head throughly to get the tiny bit of precum that stuck to the tip of his cock. Jim moaned with pleasure as I forced his cock deeper and deeper into my throat. At first I only got 2 inches down, but I managed about half of his cock until it started rubbing the back on my moist throat. I slowly withdrew to the tip and went back down on him. I repeated this process over and over until I felt him about to cum. I pulled off of him entirely. I licked my way down his cock to his warm balls.I had been ignoring his round eggs before now, but I massaged and licked them for all it was worth. I sucked one, then the other into my mouth rolling him around my tongue. His balls were too massive to have both of them into my mouth at the same time. After what seemed like 5 minutes I gave up on his balls and moved farther down. I licked the inside of his thighs and spread him wide open. I finally got to explore what I truly had been waiting for. I licked and ate his ass for all it was worth. I savored the deep musk and sweet sweat taste that had developed in his crack. I gently bit his glowing orbs and moved to spread his cheeks apart. His black anus was pink with excitement. It winked with anticipation as I licked around and around his sphincter muscle. I then finally hit the bull's-eye and Jim spasmed with joy. I heard his breathing become more ragged, like when he was nearing his last lap of a 500. I stuck my tongue in and out of his anus wiggling around. Jim rode me for all it was worth and screamed out in pleasure. After that he became very verbal. I decided it was time to finish him off. I moved back around to his front side.I once again put my hot mouth around his love machine. I pushed down and down, deep throating his rod until my mouth was rested in his beautiful pubes. OHHHHHHHHHH he gasped with pleasure. I knew he was starting to cum so I pulled my mouth up to the tip. I squirmed to stay on his cock, but some of his cum squirted out. My mouth was filled with his love juices. Swallowed some and as soon as he was finished made my way up to his mouth and gave him a snowball, or fed him back his own cum. He savored his own juices and jumped BLOCKQUOTE>on me. We wrestled for a minute and then Jim took me into his strong arms. We had finally switched rolls. Instead of me comforting him, now I was the bottom... and I am sure he will take good use of this in the future!

Back up this claim with hearsay.

[Phil Wilkins]

...err, and in what way does that article refute the 'myth' that the NT TCP/IP stack is derived from the BSD stack? It admits that certain chunks of code are definately the same, that most of the related utilities are the same, and that the author can't state how much code has changed.

Pretty thorough debunking eh?

No one tells you how to license

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, no one tells you how to license your code.

That's like in the former Soviet Union: "You don't have to be a member of the Communist Party". True, but you couldn't get an apartment, job or a decent life in general that way.

As the KDE/Qt debacle showed, RMS and his army of GNU-nazis won't leave you alone should you dare to publish software under any other license than GPL. You're shunned by the community, verbally abused and ridiculed.

nice for MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Whil BSD provide good code for windows base
OS. Momo sould provide good code to be finaly include in ms .net software.

i guess microsoft was hoping for a bsd like
lisence.

TROLLING IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

[The BOFH Troll]

Ash was laid out on a beach blanket. He was laying face down, still
sobbing from seeing a painful sight. He saw Misty riding Brocks cock. He
heard his former girl friend say how harder Brock's cock was than his. He
realized that only the hardest survive with Misty. Brock was a rock
trainer, so his cock would be as hard as a Golem.
An hour later Ash had cried himself to sleep when a girl walked over
and sat beside the sleeping boy. She was wearing a white thong bikini. Her
breasts were almost too big for her top. She had blond hair that went down
her back. She had a very nice tan, blue eyes, and the silkiest skin on the
planet.
"Poor boy, my sister wants a cock that is so long and so hard that it
would end up in her throat when the dick head stuck it in." she said
stroking Ash's back. He instinctively rolled onto his back. Valdrady ran
her hand down his chest and all the way down to his joystick. With her
touches, she had made him hard. She took off the swim trunks and played
with the seven inches. Then she rapped her mouth around the meaty tool and
began to suck. This woke Ash up, but instead of freaking out, he was
enjoying it.
"Ah yeah, suck on me." he moaned as the girl sucked harder. "Oh,
damn, I'm gonna come!" Ash yelled and came he did. He could hear her
gulping up all the seed into her stomach.
"My sister was a fool for taking that idiot Brock. You're much cuter."
she said pinning him and laying herself on top of him.
"Your Misty's sister?" Ash asked.
"Yes, we're twins. As you can see, I got the better looks." she said
taking off her top and putting Ash's hands on her globes. Ash used his
hands and mouth to explore her wondrous mounds. She cooed as Ash bit,
licked, it sucked on her diamond hard nipples. He then aggressively took off
her bottom. Valdrady stood up and Ash was on his knees.
"Suck me Ash, and you'll taste that I'm sweeter than Misty." Shall
said shoving Ash's head between her legs. Ash licked and nibbled her
which made her moan in pure delight. He then bit down on her clit and
sucked on it hard. "Yes, now I'm coming!" she yelled as her fluids Ran
into Ash's mouth like a river. She hadn't been lying about how sweet she
was. He had tasted Misty, and she was good, but this was pure heaven. She
was brought to her knees with this powerful orgasm.
"Let's do it sitting up, I like rapping my man up in my limbs." she
said.
He did not disagree. He felt every inch of her legs and arms around
him. Ash couldn't believe how soft she was. He slowly entered her
because he knew he was going to hit her hymen at any time. He hit it
gently.
"This is going to hurt, so brace yourself." he said pulling back a
little to get some sort of momentum going. She just nodded, and he broke
it. She was crying, so Ash let his dick go all the way to the hilt and he

licked up the salty tears that were + out. He held her until she calmed
down.
"Ah god, you feel so good in me." She said and started to ride Ash's
cock. He thrusts with her riding and found a pace they liked. "Don't
come until I do!" she said. Ash just growled and acknowledgement. 4
hours later, she gave the work and they both came at the same time.
"I love you," she said as they fell on the ground still rapped up in
one another.
"I love you more than I loved Misty." he said holding her close. They
fell asleep as one.

RMS, you have me confused

[alexhmit01]

I know that you read /. from time to time, as I got an e-mail from you in response to a posting. Perhaps you can enlighten us here, because I'm really confused.

In discussing the LGPL vs GPL for libraries, you mention the idea that if the ability doesn't exist outside of the library (ie readline) you should GPL it. Then, if someone wants to use your library, they need to GPL it, and this advanced free software.

However, if you are reimplementing a standard (i.e. glibc) then you should use the LGPL so that others can build on your work.

So, assuming we shared your goals of using licensing to advance free software, I still don't see how this hurts.

Right now, in the pragmatic marketplace, the Unix vendors are retreating up the ladder. Linux and GNU based systems are replacing the low-end UNIX system. Proprietary UNIX is slowly being confined to areas where Free Unix-like OSes can't perform. I think that worrying about liberating Unix users is quite silly. At this point, any markets that Unix competes in will belong to GNU when it matures to that level. UNIX isn't the enemy, its the advanced team. Crippling the commercial UNIXes in a Unix vs. MS fight really hurts free software, as we have a Free Unix, but not a free Windows. The Free Unix will displace the non-Free Unixes, but if the service runs on Windows, you won't liberate those users.

From this view point, I fail to see how this licensing change hurts thing? These classes are duplicates of the Microsoft classes. As they are based upon compatibility, you can't really do much with them directly. I don't see the leverage that even GPL'd versions give you.

If your goal is to prevent Sun from using this work to sell Solaris in this market, I think you are missing the situation here. The first choice that is made is Unix vs. WinNT. If WinNT wins, then your free tools are ignored. If Unix wins, then GNU systems get the job if they can handle it, otherwise a Unix is chosen. When the server is replaced in 2-3 years, it will likely be replaced by a GNU system.

We can't offer things that Sun and HP can. If they do the job, GNU systems kick in when they can handle it. If Win32 gets the job, you are unlikely to liberate them.

Please, explain how crippling the development efforts advanced free software?

GNUstep could have done wonders had the project been nearly completed 3-4 years ago. It is just coming to maturity now, and will likely me 2 years from true usefulness.

This industry moves quickly, and GNU is making it move faster. Any space gets eaten by Free Software within 5 years of existance now, with good prototypes in 2-3 years. Isn't it simply enough to speed up the Free Software Goliath? Why attack the Unix vendors, they're adopting the GNU way slowly as they can.

Alex

Re:RMS, you have me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

first off, i'm not rms.

second, here's what he was quoted as saying in the article: ""It is a good idea to use a license more lax than the GPL for the class libraries," Stallman says. "There are strategic reasons why it is advantageous, for the long-term overall progress towards Free Software, to make it possible to use free C# class libraries for any program that could run with Microsoft's C# class libraries."

and more from the article: Stallman believes that the Lesser GPL would have been a better choice for the libraries, because "using the X11 license makes a major unnecessary concession: It allows non-free versions of the libraries themselves." He says that using the LGPL would allow linking to non-free programs, but would preserve the free status of the library itself.

gee, the real persistent slashdot myth is that rms is unreasonable.

What the fuck?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please tell me what this
has to do with kiddie porn!?!?
I came here for kiddie porn, dammit!
Someone sent me this link and promised
me over 30 GB of kiddie porn!!! Where's
my god-damned fucking kiddie porn,
damn it!!! I want it now!!

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea, I think we should also expand it to also exclude niggers and kikes.

License.

[z-man]

Here's a link to the license for those interested in reading it:

mit-license [opensource.org]

The GPL is restrictive.

[Pope Slackman]

How can a professional journalist be so irresponsible as to write things like:

Well, the same way a pro journalist can call a semiauto rifle an assualt weapon, but that's really beside the point.
Journalists are dumb, this fact is proven nearly every day.

Ximian, a company working to improve the Linux operating system for ordinary computer users, has made a philosophical shift in a key new open-source software project that now will be governed by a less restrictive license [emphasis added].

Umm...Maybe you haven't read it lately, but the GPL *is* as restrictive license.
A restriction is still a restriction, no matter if it's ultimate goal is openness or profit.

C-X C-S

Re:The GPL is restrictive.

[kubla2000]

Umm...Maybe you haven't read it lately, but the GPL *is* as restrictive license. A restriction is still a restriction, no matter if it's ultimate goal is openness or profit.

It's not a question of more or less. It's different! That's all. Microsoft's EULA is not any more open than the GPL no matter what their marketing spin might have people believe. This article insinuates that you're somehow strapped to lead weights and sunk in a deep ocean with the GPL. While the GPL may be restrictive, it's simply a different kind of restriction than that engendered by other, non GPL licenses.

My point was that the monkey at the keyboard writing that article suggested, in bold type no less, that a portion of Ximian mono was going to be ... a less restrictive license than the GPL. That is as rubbish as saying that the GPL is non restrictive. Saying either leads the ignorant down a garden path. That's what marketing is for, not journalism!

Gnome was written by GPL fundamentalists....

[Anonymous Coward]

... and now, after splitting the Linux desktop effort and setting us back 10 years they have the gall to dump the GPL and "get practical"???

For crying out loud, if the jokers had been "practical" from the start we'd all be on KDE 5.0 and it would be rock solid and kick XP's ass. As it is, we've got two desktop environments that are on a par with Windows 2000, if that.

Nice one.

actually, your post should be...

[lemox]

What, would you have preferred "that now will be governed by a less blessed and pure license"?

The statement was wholly appropriate, and this is coming from someone who happens to like the GPL in most cases.

I mean, some zealotry is expected from time to time, but this frothing at the mouth over a statement that was logically sound and not at all inaccurate just lends people to think all people who are pro-GPL are a bunch of dogmatic cultists. And what the hell is up with the second statement? It boggles the mind to even try and guess what the hell you found wrong with that.

Thanks a bunch. I'll remember you the next time I mention Linux to someone and they look at me like I'm a scientologist.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Zico]

Mono is a direct frontal attack.

Stop. Please. Now. Ami, you seem like the nicest person from your posts, and I know I tend to have an itchy trigger finger around here, and I really am trying to be a good boy tonight, so please bear with me...

This is not a direct frontal attack. Microsoft is pleased about Mono. Last month they even had a front page interview with Miguel at the MSDN site about his opinions on .NET and Mono. Microsoft wants .NET to spread, which is why they standardized it with ECMA to begin with (along with the not-so-subtle jab at Sun's own Java standardization foibles). The more interest there is in .NET, the less there is in Java, and consequently the more Sun is put over a barrel with regards to Java, especially at a time in Sun's history in which they been losing money for a few quarters now, and especially when Sun already has rocky relations with the open source community as it is.

I know most people at Slashdot love to think that Microsoft is a company of bumblers and that every move they make is some fatal step that will spell their downfall, but well, we've been hearing that for years now, and frankly all the marketshare numbers, server and desktop, show the opposite has been happening. Slashdot might never admit it, but there's some decent evidence out there that *gasp* Microsoft actually knows what it's doing. HP and Intel were the two biggest contributors with Microsoft in the .NET standardization process, and Microsoft actually expects them to help spread the word that .NET is A Good Thing. The Mono classes getting out from under the GPL is icing on the cake.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Malcontent]

You are right. Only a nuclear bomb dropped on redmond could stop MS right now and I am not too sure about that.

MS just has too much power, money, political clout etc. They pretty much can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Even the DOJ is afraid to punish them when they break the law.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[TummyX]

True enough. I knew about most of those, although not all. But this is a little different. It's one thing to support an alternative technology, but Mono is a direct frontal attack.


Considering Microsoft is helping Ximian port .NET and has turned the CLI/C# (the parts that make up Mono) into an international standard do you really think that Mono is a direct frontal attack on Microsoft? Maybe you should let MS know they're attacking themselves!


If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.


Maybe for some parts of .NET (Passport vs "Freedom" Alliance), but certainly not for the development/runtime side of things. Microsoft wants those to succeed. MS are even shipping the c# and vb compilers with their .NET runtimes. Expect to see .NET language compilers included in the next version of Windows.

English, motherfucker -- do you speak it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono then?

What you say !!

A disturbing move.

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems very disturbing to me. Personally I believe rather strongly that GPL-ing your code is very important to protect it from abuse and perversion. But the trend nowadays seems to be:

• GPL the code initially but make the people sign their rights over to you.
• Change the license out from under them.

We watched this happen with the tux racer game, and now with mono. What scares me is that OpenOffice is the same way -- you have to sign your copyright over to Sun to contribute. The sad thing is that these projects are large enough that a particular developer has no real alternative if they don't want to release their rights. What I mean is -- you'd have a hard time convincing people to fork the project just because someone might play dirty in the future.

Has the "Open Source" focus on pragmatic, short-term benefits blinded us to the philosophy and goals of the Free Software movement? This philosophy is what has propelled us this far -- we should not be so quick to abandon it so that commercial code will have a better chance of coexisting with us. Do we really want adware and spyware running on GNU systems?

Collectively contributed code should not be able to change licenses without the approval of all who have contributed. I think it's a shame that these sorts of things are allowed to happen.

Re:A disturbing move.

[Nicolas MONNET]

Tux Racer changed from free software to proprietary software.

Mono changed from free software to free software.

Your comparison sucks.

Re:A disturbing move.

[Znork]

As long as the code is GPL you can go the other way. Fork immediately at license change and convince as many developers as possible to either contribute to both branches or exclusively to the still-GPL branch. You need exclusive copyright to change licenses, but you dont need that to fork the code.

Re:A disturbing move.

[Cyclops]

Moderating the above message as troll seems like an abuse of moderation rights. The only reason it could be called troll is if you disagree with his opinion, and that is a sad motive for modding someone down.

Booo to the moderators who moderated this guy as a troll (I guess this will make me a flame bait, oh *sigh* that bothers me so much, coming from those who moderated the above as a troll -- not)

Re:A disturbing move.

[cduffy]

It could be argued to be trolling because it's using factually incorrect statements to incite trouble.

Mono has not been made proprietary. The new license used for its runtime library is arguably more free than its old one.

TuxRacer was developed almost entirely by Sunspire Studios -- in fact, I don't know of any patches written for it by anyone outside of Sunspire that were integrated into the source. The GPLed version hasn't been withdrawn; rather, an extended version has been written and put up for sale by the original copyright holder. I don't see anything at all wrong with this.

As for OpenOffice, yes, the copyright assignment allows Sun to incorporate contributed code into StarOffice -- but since the GPL'd OpenOffice code is still out there (and while they can stop developing new GPL'd code, they can't withdraw what's already out there), who cares?

I agree, though, that a response (like this one!) is better than just mod'ing down the parent (or any post which doesn't explicitly try to troll).

RMS' vision

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS's vision is _not_ about stopping closed source software -- it is quite broader than that. His vision, as far as I can understand it, is about providing freedom and absolute equality to the whole of the world, rather than the individuals on the world.

Those who cannot afford have in the past, and likely will continue to in the future, be denied legal access to software which could possibly give them the skills they need to properly work. In the new future, software is being used to deny the very same people free access to media that might give them education so that they might develop the skills needed to work.

RMS is about equality throughout the system without regard to corporate entities, or individual rights, if you ask me. His vision is a world where worldwide rights reign -- where anyone is allowed to read any book, run any software, or make any digital work they please without regard to the desires of the author. In RMS' world you would just as easily take the code from any piece of software and create new software with it as you would take scenes from one movie and place them in another without worry.

Of course there's the rub: You can't have absolute freedom in a world that guarantees absolute equality. So RMS' always seems to trade freedom where it conflicts with equality .

That is what I've taken away from reading his various ideas on his site. If I'm right, I'd say his views are far too socialist for my liking. But some of what he says makes sense, and a balance closer to equality rather than freedom needs to be struck. Giving publishers to right to deny their works proper publishing in a library is wrong, IMHO, as is granting ever increasing copyright lengths. But denying the author reasonable compensation for their work is wrong also. Oh well, can't win them all.

The truth of the matter is that those views will never be possible as long as money (or its eqivalent) exists. Up to now, I've never seen such an environment, fiction or not.

Basically, I think RMS created the GPL in the advocacy of those thoughts, and that's why he goes off the handle when the GPL is used outside of those terms, or anything else voilates or threatens to corrupt that vision of the world.

Attach flames below. :)

suck my dick you fuckin cocksucker

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid microsoft. eat my ass.

stupid slashdot. eat my slash.

stupid bill gates. eat my hash.

fuck you assholio. stupid ximian, you suck cock.

buggy fuckin software, talk, talk,talk.

poop in your mouth you nevah cayah.

sperm in yo ear u nevah theyah.

cmdr taco you are a mess,

cocaine addict, wearing weekend dresses

smack it around apt get geeks

eat my asshole, lick my pink cheeks,

i wish all you would delete your dir,

cause your affection is so rectal,

poop on a rope and smeared on a stick,

chess will be played with some kind of spicy nachos,

shut up you fool you are naught but one,

rocketeer thy be and some kind of knitted scarf.

curtains drawn you walk away,

finger my bumhole stupid john katts,

gayboy for laughs,

open source is dead says ibm server admin,

suck my ram says hard drive from western digital.

Damn..

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I don't like Mono. I always prefer True Color, it rules

Learn to read links...

[Carnage4Life]

The linked article clearly mentions that MSFT uses the BSD implemntation of FTP and a few more command line tools. Here is an excerpt since you don't seem to have read it

However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California (BSD is short for Berkeley Software Distrubution, Berkeley being a branch of the University of California, for some reason referred to as "Berkeley" on the East Coast and "California" on the West Coast...and "Berkeley" is one of those words that starts to look real funny if you stare at it too long - but I digress).

Keep in mind there is no reason to rewrite that code. If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.

However, the point of contention has always been the claim that the MSFT Windows TCP/IP stack "stole" code from BSD and not whether some command line utilities are ports of the BSD versions.

Re:Learn to read links...

[fanatic]

The linked article clearly mentions that MSFT uses the BSD implemntation of FTP and a few more command line tools. Here is an excerpt since you don't seem to have read it

Oops. You definitely have a point, in that MSTCP.DLL lacks the copyright notice shown above. Which doesn't prove that they didn't steal code, but certainly taks the sting out of my point specifically regarding the TCP/IP stack.

If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.

Which is exactly the point - someone wrote the code for free usage, but a big (in this case nasty) corporation benefits. If the fellow who wrote the code wanted it used this way, that's his choice. But I wouldn't want my code used this way (presuming I wrote any that they wanted).

Re:Learn to read links...

[Gid1]

Which is exactly the point - someone wrote the code for free usage, but a big (in this case nasty) corporation benefits. If the fellow who wrote the code wanted it used this way, that's his choice.

The fellow who wrote the code obviously didn't *care* how it was used. That someone wrote the code for *any* usage, otherwise the license shouldn't have been BSD.

I never did understand why making ideological agreement with the author a condition of licensing was a good idea...

I figure "I'm not making any money off this code" so why should I make sure no-one else is either? If someone else finds a way to make a profit out of it, then good for them. It would be nice if they decided to contribute back, bu it's their choice.

There are many other reasons for open sourcing other than ideology or warm fuzzies, but I don't use my code to leverage morality

Re:Learn to read links...

[fanatic]

I figure "I'm not making any money off this code" so why should I make sure no-one else is either?

Makes sense until the point some outfit gets it in their mind that they are the ONLY ones who should make software or make money off of code, and who then uses your code to help make this happen. Microsoft is such an outfit. Any code given to them for their use is used against anyone who doesn't see the world their way. Witness their use of Kerberos. The BSD license is fine in a world that isn't dominated by a vendor with no ethics, desiring no competiton.

I had Mono as a kid...

[Gazelem]

Does this mean I now owe royalties?

A question about copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand everything in the copyrights (so I'm asking your lights 8-)

Imagine that I develop a revolutionnary program that calculates precisely the time for an egg to cook and that a release it under the GPL. Can I wait for all of you to fix all the bugs and even improve it to also calculate the time for a steak to cook and then change the licence to another license like a commercial one???

I don't get it, please help...

Re:A question about copyrights

[tulare]

I think a more apt analogy would be this: I build a fancy egg timer which consists of a core software device, along with a bunch of really attractive features such as a bunch of LEDs that blink "I LOVE U" in alternating colors, and an exterior subtly designed to look like a spaceship, or a rooster, or whatever, along with a plug-in module that calculates the time it takes to cook ac thighs on a grill. I release this whole thing under the GPL, and put it out there.

Now imagine an investor comes out there and says, "Nice egg timer. We're ok with the core software being GPLed, but we want to have more control over the LEDs and the shell." So anyone who wants can still develop their own features to hang off the core software device - that still hasn't changed. But to please the investor, who will lend my egg timer a great deal of credibility and exposure, the LEDs and the rooster skin are now proprietary.

What do I do? Again, a question I am glad that I personally didn't have to answer.

RMS is going to shit a brick...

[SquireCD]

That's great. I love Ximian but this really sucks... that's all we need is something else RMS can stage a political protest against. I wish someone would just tell him, "relax man. its going to be o-k."

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Ami Ganguli]

Stop. Please. Now. Ami, you seem like the nicest person from your posts, and I know I tend to have an itchy trigger finger around here, and I really am trying to be a good boy tonight, so please bear with me...

Thanks.. I think. But really you don't need to be a good boy on my account. Being a good boy does earn you a response, however. Bad boys get ignored :-).

Slashdot might never admit it, but there's some decent evidence out there that *gasp* Microsoft actually knows what it's doing.

Indeed, they definately know what they're doing. Thats why I dont buy that they really want to see Mono succeed.

Microsoft makes it's money from Windows and Office. Two monopolies who's days are numbered. They won't go down tomorrow, or even next year, but it is happening. The only way they can survive is to use the next few years to establish themselves in other markets. Even doing that won't give them the same kinds of margins they have now unless they can establish a monopoly.

If Microsoft appears to be pushing Mono then there are few possibilities: 1) it's a PR ploy because they believe that they can pull the rug out later (perhaps using software patents), 2) they really think that they can dominate the market for software services if there's level playing field, 3) they've resigned themselves to becoming just another computer company, comparable to Oracle or Computer Associates, 4) they're idiots.

We've already agreed they're not idiots, so that eliminates #4. #3 seems unlikely, given that it's really to early for them to give up on world domination. They might as well give a shot since they've come this far. That leaves only "PR" and "extreme confidence". Given that they've got $40 billion in the bank, I suppose they have reasons to be confident, but knowing what we do about the level of paranoia within Microsoft I'd say PR is much more likely.

Martyr License

[_Sprocket_]

Secondly, unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities but instead is the optimal way to provide utility to users of software.

I agree at first. Open Source is about functionality and empowering the user. When you think about it, pitting platforms and user communities against each other is really a byproduct of marketing. And that's the source of "evil" that leads to a lack of interoperability and removal of user choice... but I digress.

If the BSD license is somehow superior to the GPL because it has fewer restrictions which allows more people to use BSD code... then why bother with a license? Obviously, releasing code to the public domain would be superior to both the BSD and GPL. Why bother with the BSD license at all?

Simple. Credit where credit is due. Fame. Recognition. The one universal currency within the Open Source landscape.

All licenses involve a price. And while that price affects end users, it is really about developers and the IT industry. Licenses exist to limit or serve that industry.

Sure - Open Source takes the user in account. They may even be about enabling the user. But as soon as a developer is considering which license best suits his/her requirements... it is no longer about the end user.

A question about license changes

[elliotj]

Does anyone know what happens to previously released code that then experiences a license change? To use a hypothetical for my question: what happens if you write a program and release it under the GPL. I come along and make modifications of the program and release my new code under the GPL to comply with the GPL from your code. Then you decide to change the license for the original program to something different - say for the sake of being extreme, you close source it. Does that mean that my derivative code is now in violation of your new license change?

Re:A question about license changes

[unapersson]

No, because the version you worked on was GPL'd. Future versions of their program can be under whatever license they like, provided they own the copyright for all the code, but you are free to fork the GPL version and compete with their relicensed version. This is similar to what occured with TuxRacer recently.

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[dirk]

fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community.
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.

This isn't an example of someone or something being hurt. Lack of gain doesn't equal injury. Nothing has been gained from MS not releasing their code, but nothing has been lost. Just because they didn't help you by releasing their code, that doesn't mean they have hurt you.

Frustrating

[Outland Traveller]

The X11 and the BSD licenses are a mixed bag. On one hand there are amazing success stories like well, XFree86 and the BSDs. On the other hand there are less successful scenarios like WINE where you see lots of proprietary forks, all closed from each other, all providing a disincentive for someone to redundantly code a free version.

The future of Mono as free software appears to be troubled (even more than it already was). It may make Ximian and Intel a buck or two, but I wonder if it will bring any benefit to the free sofware community.

I would have preferred an LGPL license. Dropping the LGPL, which is really quite tame, makes me suspicious of Ximian/Intel's motives.

Look at Mozilla

[fajoli]

Mozilla tried to go down a path with different licenses as well. Ultimately, so many contributed GPL only contributions it became hard to seperate the GPL stuff from the non-GPL stuff. Today, Mozilla has transistioned to a GPL license.

If enough people contribute to the Mono exercise with GPL code, there really won't be a distinction. If you contribute, just GPL your stuff. If it's important enough, there really won't be much choice.

Re:Look at Mozilla

[vidarh]

Excuse me? This is cut and paste from Mozilla.org's licensing policy document:

"If you're adding a new Mozilla source file then you must license it under an MPL/GPL/LGPL "triple license," unless the new file contains code taken from a file under another license. (In the latter case you may need to talk to mozilla.org staff before adding the new file.)"

And if you go to their license information page, you'll find:

"At the moment, parts of the source are available under either the Netscape Public License (NPL) or the Mozilla Public License (MPL), often in combination with either the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or both. mozilla.org is working towards having all the code in the tree licensed under a MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license; for more information, see the Relicensing FAQ. Any code checked into our CVS tree needs to comply with the licensing policy"

So no, they haven't transitioned to a GPL license - but they're trying to unify their licensing on MPL/LGL/GPL instead of (N or M)PL/(L)GPL. A simplification to what they had, but they're certainly not transitioning away from multiple licenses.

Re:Look at Mozilla

[miguel]

That is incorrect. Mozilla is using a dual-licensing strategy. If you want your code incorporated into Mozilla, you have to grant them the permission to license the code under the NPL,
MPL and the GPL.

The fact that the GPL is used in Mozilla is more of a gift to the community to allow them to mix Mozilla code with existing GPL code than Mozilla being forced to use GPL code.

Miguel

oh not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman must be spinning in his grave...

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. NetBSD has been ported to the Hammer.

Sun, GNOME, Mono?

[Taurine]

Has anything come out of Sun about this yet? Last I heard they were going to replace CDE with GNOME in the next Solaris. GNOME is principly developed by Ximian people, and Miguel begins his article in Dr Dobbs Journal this month by implying that he would have prefered to have been able to implement Evolution in C#/.NET/Mono. It seems clear that he would like to eventually port GNOME to Mono. That would be a very anti-Sun move.

But I haven't seen anything about this around. Has anyone seen anything?

Re:Sun, GNOME, Mono?

[ambrosius27]

GNOME is composed of many thousands (or millions?) of lines of C code. Converting GNOME to C# is a gargantuan task and not likely to happen for a very long time, if ever. Sun doesn't have much to worry about in this respect.

Re:Sun, GNOME, Mono?

[bshuttleworth]

Why would this be anti-sun? Just because Microsoft started the whole thing doesn't auto-magically mean that everyone will hate it. The idea of Mono is that .NET is fully available to everyone - this is something SUN would probably jump at.

Another chance to beat Microsoft at their own game? Sounds like something Sun would love to do...

This is *only* the class libraries.

[Queuetue]

http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#licensing

The C# Compiler is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL. And the class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.

I don't know how much better that is, but at least it's better then changing the license to all of Mono.

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[vidarh]

If Microsoft takes Mono code and incorporates it in .Net, that would be great. And I'm a big Microsoft hater. The reason it would be great is that the more code Microsoft .Net and Mono shares, the more likely it would be that Mono would actually manage to be fully compatible with .Net.

If Microsoft wants to take advantage of the Mono project by incorporating code from it in .Net, then that benefits Mono too.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[rlowe69]

If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.

I wouldn't really say Mono is a "clone". It's more like an implementation. MS releases the specs for a new software architecture and/or compliler fully expecting people to port it. Their motivations behind this are probably many, but we can only speculate. The truth is, MS could care less if people implement the spec, otherwise they wouldn't have released it.

Win32 (Wine) on the other hand is closed source. It is completely possible that MS could have another layer equivalent to Win32 on top of the .NET architecture (ie. WinNET) that people CAN'T port to because it's closed. So big deal if your programs are executable on Windows from Linux (because the Linux libraries are open and ported), you won't be able to use the closed WinNET libraries on Linux because THEY are proprietary and closed - that is, until a year or two later when someone does a Wine-like port ... but we'll still be playing catch-up.

Ah ha! Now THERE'S a strategy.

Lesser than Common Wealth

[3seas]

The GPL is designed to generate a common wealth of software, an
expanding base that does drive competition in the commercial market,
regardless of the licenses being used in the market.

On one end of the spectrum of licenses you have the growth of this base of
Common Wealth code.

On the other end you have the extream of closed down tight proprietary
code that is done so as a matter of milking it for every penny you can get
out of it, profits focused to a few.

If all code was proprietary, you can be certain that we would not be
anywhere near as advanced in this technology as we are today.

The BSD License doesn't help the Common Wealth code base as much as GPL
does. But the GPL doesn't help the proprietary code base any more than
vice versa.

So, do you build upon Common Wealth or slow it's advancement thru such
licenses support some other point in the spectrum?

In time it will become clear that compromises such as what the BSD license
allows, will act counter productive to the GPL objective/goal. In time,
thru the compromise, the GPL will become heavely constrained by those who
use the compromise to place barriers to advancement in front of the GPL.

Consider a piece of BSD licensed code, open to be improved until someone
comes along and pulls it behind the curtain and slaps patented piece of
software on it, effectively preventing anyone else from advancing that
software in that direction in an open source manner.

It should be worth noting that IBM is the Leading US patent holder, being
granted more patents a year than any other company or party, in the US.

This particular story regarding Mono is a good indication of....Ok it's ok
to make the engines available for free but we are gonna own all the tires
and gas.....and these engines won't be able to go anywhere without our
permission, and that's for sale.

RMS sees possibilities and then applies human greed to the equasion to
determine what to expect. I now this because I do it too, and it's always
right.

So Sure RMS seems to be extream, because when dealing with the devil,
there is no such thing as compromise. Only an illusion to lead you to
think so, untill it's to late for you to do anything about it.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[jmcneill]

NetBSD runs on the Hammer already.

See the NetBSD/x86_64 port page.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

MS just has too much power, money, political clout etc. They pretty much can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Even the DOJ is afraid to punish them when they break the law.

And the funniest thing is; they were almost completely apolitical before the DOJ lawsuit. Way to go DOJ!

Mono is void + My thoughts on .net : Read & NJ

[Anonymous Coward]

that still cry for their windows !

Don't expect MS to be the good one that will kill it self its fruit of the loom aka Windows.

Buy using massivelly COM+ stuff the .net platform is tied to the only COM+ available platform aka Windows, and having any CLR & C# (yes including CoreClass) port does not mean anything but just some maketingware !

Here MS try to let people dream they will be fully complient with MS without using MS product, but who on hell do you think they are ?
I don't say they are hevil, just saying they are a comercial complagny that is doing business and have a competitive advance because beeing on 90% of the PC !!!

What MS what is try to fix the blood fill that Java has started ... they've realized the power of its concept and realized that it could be armfull for their future business !

Now, they try to say : .net is a revolution but hey VB user keep quiet nothing will change !!!!

This is just not possible, if it is a revolution : compare to what ? existing MS technologies ? So maybe yes ... if compare to Java, then definitively .NOT as it is just 99% the same (1% is for the custom attribute stuff that is the only noticeable exception)
If nothing change, why should i go for it ?
Why should i pay skills and expertises and involved into a costly paradigm shift if i get nothing with it ?

By the way, if i am a VB user, why should i go VB.NET ? Webservices? Bu i can get the SOAP MSTK or the MS ROPE bridge and get the plain features with as much as ease and 10x times less bucks !!!

Why pay and have fear for an uncertain platform when the existing just have the same benefits !

My own oppinion is that MS.net will just fail and most of the MS users will soon realize that all those stuffs are just marketing-inside and that they should stay where they are !
But, by killing their leggacy technologies MS have just do advertisement for the Java platform and just legitimate all the benefits claimed by the 100% Java paradigm.

As a matter of fact, MS has just became one of the best Java advocate !

4R34'.

imposter!

[r00tarded]

Even Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and author of the GPL agrees, for the most part. "It is a good idea to use a license more lax than the GPL for the class libraries," Stallman says.

ok, what have you done with the real RMS?

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[uglyduckling]

What do you want "passed back"?

Well, a few thousand dollars and say a free laptop each for the developers of that particular 'fragment' of code wouldn't have gone amiss, and that would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the money that MS have made from Windows - and the ongoing success of Windows must have be in no small way due to it being properly TCP/IP 'enabled'.

Of course MS were under no obligation to do so, but its pretty sad that they never even gave proper credit. Most end users wouldn't even understand what the credit meant, and those who did would think more favourably of MS in future: everyone wins.

Please log in, Katz!

[The Turd Report]

Forget your password again, Katz?

hmmm.

[QuantumG]

"allow applications to communicate and share data over the Internet, regardless of operating system, device, or programming language,"

Sounds like Antitrust.

news.com.com ?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice that the story is on news.com.com, not news.com?

Intel dont care about free software

[Anonymous Coward]

"Intel writes the fastest C/C++ and Fortran compilers and parallelization tools for Linux"

And maybe we will thank them so much we will choose to go out a BUY their CLOSED SOURCE C compiler which they brag is 47% faster than GCC.

If intel gave a damn about open source they would assist the gcc with speed improvements

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ximian will be gone within a years along with that little asshole Miguel. .NET is unproven and likely a failure if MS security stays the way it is.
Do yourself a failure and advance linux by not supporting Ximian or Miguel. They are just going to fail anyway.

Hey Ximian I have a nice plot for you, right next to Eazel, Progeny, Storm, Corel, Chilliware, eta al.

gcc is beyond help

[QuantumG]

Portability portability portability. Try to fix gcc's speed woes and your patch will be ignored. Post to the gcc mailing list and you will not get a single response from a core developer. This is the state of gcc development. It takes a significant investment to get your head into the gcc source tree and generating good code is something you're not likely to have a lot of fun with. Stuff like vectorization instructions is just not easy to hack onto the lisp like internal syntax of gcc.

Why does

[Anonymous Coward]

A go nowhere company like Ximian have there own icon? It's not like they will even be here in a year. Sigh...Oh well I guess they did not get the Chapter 11 notice which explained that evey linux desktop company has failed. Morons. Gnome sucks donkey dick. Then again so does Miguel, so they really do have something in common.

Pop quiz what does Ximian have in common with Loki, Eazel, Stormix, Progeny, and Corel?

Answer: Your a fucking moron if you don't know.

(sig of a former linux user)

There are arguments both ways

[HiThere]

I don't find any of them conclusive. Both are certainly an improvement over closed source.

My preference is that all API's, interfaces, etc. should be under a BSD style (i.e., non-restrictive) license.

For libraries I prefer LGPL.

For programs I prefer GPL (possibly with dual -licensed commercial option, but that does require complete ownership of the code, and thus is often infeasible).

But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.

Still, it is a pity that such a basic tool as a compiler is under a bsd-style license. And (as I indicated above) in my mind the libraries should be LGPL. But perhaps the Mono project is getting funding from some of the mentioned companies. That could certainly be enough to change one's mind, at least as far as BSD.
.

Re:There are arguments both ways

[Ded Bob]

My preference is that all API's, interfaces, etc. should be under a BSD style (i.e., non-restrictive) license.

For libraries I prefer LGPL.

How are these different assuming both refer to code?

But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.

I can agree with this.

Re:There are arguments both ways

[HiThere]

The LGPL requires that if binary versions are distributed, that any modified versions of the library code be included with the distribution. (No requirements about the main program.) The BSD license makes no such requirement.

This is required for many purposes to validate that the changes made to the libraries did not invalidate the code. (Admittedly, in that circumstance one often also needs the code to the main program, but sometimes the library code suffices.)
.

Re:There are arguments both ways

[Ded Bob]

You misunderstood. I was asking the difference between the API's and libraries. If both are in code, what would be the difference?

One ISO in an hour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cable sucks! It took me less than 75 minutes to download two iso images. Nothing beats 3MB/sec for $19.95 a month.

Re:One ISO in an hour?

[Anonymous Coward]

who's your provider?

LGPL doesn't work well for .NET or Java Apps

[steve_l]

LGPL doesnt work well for .NET or Java Apps; because they are mostly all 'libraries'; any app can usually be loaded as a library and its classes and methods called directly. So LGPL==GPL for these systems.

Maybe the FSF need to issue an LLGPL for these platforms, which says 'any changes you make to this set of classes, or new classes you add to same packages (java) and assemblies (.NET) have to be GPL, but if you include this stuff inside another library, what you do with the rest is up to you.

what happened to the monkey who

[Anonymous Coward]

fiddled with the wedges on the logs/
fiddled with the wringer/
will happen to mono.
r.i.p.

Just lost the war

[Xylantiel]

The entire reason to have a strong license like the GPL is for situations like the one the Ximian is in. The are up against a very powerful, well-funded, entrenched proprietary vendor. I predict the downfall will happen like this:

As soon as anyone starts to use Mono instead of MS's stuff, MS will just steal Mono's code, put it in their proprietary stuff and then tell their customers there is no reason to change because they just appropriated the feature that the customer was seeking. This is not so important in itself, but after this happens a few times Mono will likely be orphaned by the developer community. People don't like having their donated code sold for profit.

What is sad is that the "other companies" that want this license change do not understand that it will be the dowfall of the project.

It sounds like Ximian has decided that vendor support is worth sacrificing the viabiblity of a large section of their project. That's their decision, I just have the impression that it might be short-sighted.

Interesting how all the highly moderated comments are anti-GPL. This is slashdot, somethings wrong.

Linux GPL doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Stallman has already admitted that the
BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL
and thus more free. It's no wonder that
everyone is turning away from Linux and looking
into running the fine BSD operating systems
out there like FreeBSD.

Mono and Licensing

[Jason_Knx]

One of the points of Mono is to make a fully compatible version of the .NET implementation for non Windows platforms.

I don't really see this as competing directly with MS. Remember at first there was hinting that Corel would write a Linux version of .NET. That doesn't seem to be happing, and so there's Mono instead. If anything this helps MS so they don't have to do it themselves. I helps Linux in they get an implementation which is also Open Source. It helps developers, especially large propietary vendors in that they can develop without GPL concerns which will attract more people to use it. This then helps everyone in that they can have more software available to them that can be run of the OS of there choice and (hopefully) maintain compatiblity between them. This'll also help in which there won't have to be completely different code bases to be maintained for software so once it's written on one platform very little will have to be done to port it to another.

just to clarify one point

[Xtifr]

The problems with the licensing were pointed out in what quickly became a huge flamewar within hours of the initial KDE Call For Developers on Usenet (yes, this was long enough ago that serious developers still used Usenet).

So, the core KDE team knew about the problems before they had one line of code written!

(Frankly, I don't give a crap about KDE or GNOME -- they both suck, IMO -- but revisionist history annoys me.)

Re:just to clarify one point

[Enahs]

Revisionist history, eh?

Wow, you've got a lower UID than I. I bow to thee. Sorry if my comment sounded revisionist; I still stand by my KDE-programmer-naivete remark. Heck, up until QT was dual-licensed under the GPL, some of the KDE folks claimed their lawyers(!) could find nothing wrong with linking against Qt. The FSF's lawyers, however, could.

All a matter of perspective. I pored through the GPL, the QPL, etc. for hours once upon a time and I could find more than one way of interpreting it, in favor of both groups. It was never as clear-cut was it was claimed.

Recontribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be sure I have this straight -- there is nothing in the X11 license that requires either of these companies to contribute improvements that they have made to the class libraried from mono? right?

So, essentially HP and intel go off and finish the libraries, market the product (or license it to MS) and mono never gets finished. While I understand the point that it is important to get Intel and HP on board, it seems like they could have come up with a license that dictated that HP/Intel retains rights to anything built on top of the library, but that they must contribute improvements to the library code base back to mono.

Seems like this could create a seriously fragmented market of mono derivatives with no actual mono release. IMHO

Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th

[spitzak]

I agree with this. If MicroSoft thinks some of the Mono code is superior and copies it, they are making the open-source version and their version more compatable. This can only help the open-source version.

Actually if this really works, MicroSoft may eventually be forced to copy the open-source version. This is because that source code may be used as the "reference implementation" that everybody tries to debug their .net problems to. Customers may actually complain if the MicroSoft solution seems to conflict with the only usable documentation they have, which is the open-source code.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[spasmatik]

You may want to look into the history of this all. Intel was porting to BSD with MS's blessing. According to people from Corel they were thrown cash to port to linux originally until MS decided the GPL was the enemy. I really think the whole shift by MS is due to diminishing returns on their OS's. What are the key parts of Windows? Media Player and IE as delivery mechanisms for media. Why do you think AOL and MS are recent enemies. .NET (the strategy not the framework) is about owning the delivery mechanisms. AOL is afraid of MS moving in. AOL doesn't have control of a browser that has any market share. .NET can't really succeed by forcing anyone to a particular OS. MS envisions the world as a "pay as you go" service. MS is moving away from the desktop. XBox was jsut the start of it. The technologies will converge. Telephone companies are starting to sell digitial cable services, cable companies are selling telephone services. Its all the same now. Mono is not about competing with MS in the slightest. .NET (the framework) is a superior technology. Ximian values it. Intel's angle i am as of now a little unsure. Think about this. MS lets whoever port .NET. They save themselves the time and money by letting someone else do it. THey have a huge headstart and in the end they get to have all the technology they develop able to run on at least 50% of all the servers out there. If Mono is poorly implemented when its released MS could gain more server market share. "We do .NET better".

Re: your sig

[ahde]

"...you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper." -L. Flynt

So who decides--the sheep? Then the five wolves go hungry cause they can't eat grass.

Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux

[ahde]

Microsoft also makes its money from MSN and Windows Media Player -- they're getting paid alot to develop secure & proprietary music and video formats -- and killing off mp3 is one of the recording companies' biggest wishes

Greater! (Was: Re:Lesser than Common Wealth)

[Anonymous Coward]

The respective licenses covering the Boost Libraries (www.boost.org) and STLport (www.stlport.com) are more-or-less MITish. These things make their way into projects of all sorts; GPL, BSDish, MITish, never-bothered-to-be-released-to-the-public, and proprietary software. Slapping the MIT license allows for the greatest possible distribution of something fairly integral to many different projects.

In time it will become clear that compromises such as what the BSD license
allows, will act counter productive to the GPL objective/goal. In time,
thru the compromise, the GPL will become heavely constrained by those who
use the compromise to place barriers to advancement in front of the GPL.

Consider a piece of BSD licensed code, open to be improved until someone
comes along and pulls it behind the curtain and slaps patented piece of
software on it, effectively preventing anyone else from advancing that
software in that direction in an open source manner.

1) I thought the GPL was about providing high-quality software, not Total World Domination.
How does changing to the X/MIT license directlyhurt anything that's GPL'd? "It may improve the quality of commercial, closed source software, and therefore is a bad thing" seems like a needlessly selfish train of thought.

2) How does the X/MIT licensed code that's used in a proprietary project hurt anyone except by providing a higher quality piece of software to those who pay someone else to write it? Do keep in mind that the same bits of code are freely available for any open-source project to use.

nisharfi@remove-this-please.csupomona.edu

Re:Greater! (Was: Re:Lesser than Common Wealth)

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is about the rights of users, not quality. Software development is still too immature and unquantified to start putting quality requirements in legal agreements. Open Source advocates merely say a closed system sucks; Free Software advocates say it's wrong even when it doesn't suck (though it generally does).

It's much harder to outcompete and displace proprietary software while subsidizing its propogation. Closed source harms the work-for-hire market for improvements (an ethical business model, not requiring control over one's customers) and leaves society without any access to improvements made by failed vendors.

Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft?

[cduffy]

If you're a GPL advocate, the answer of course is, "YES! A small fragement of Windows used our code so now we should by RIGHT have full and complete access to everything that is Windows!".

A large part of the GPL's point is to encourage development of "Free Software" by making it more expensive to develop proprietary software (by making quality libraries/tools available for users of the GPL but not for those who use libraries granting the user less flexibility). The intent is not to force proprietary software companies to open their software when they mistakenly use GPL'd code; rather, the intent is to prevent closed-source companies from using these "Free" tools in their proprietary software in the first case.

Thus, a GPL advocate's argument (presuming that the source in question were under the GPL) would be closer to "Microsoft used a small fragment of our code in their large proprietary operating system; because we only want our tools and code to ease Free software development, they need to write their own implementation unless they make their product Free" -- a much more reasonable position. There's no expected right of the GPL advocate to access to the infringing codebase, except as a threat used to encourage that the code be rewritten (unless the infringing party decides to abide by the license of the hitherto "stolen" GPLed code, rather than eliminating that code from his/her app). If anything, it's the infringer who is mistaken in thinking he or she has the "right" to use the GPLed code without abiding by its license.

However, I'm not a GPL advocate per se -- I far prefer the LGPL, even in situations where the FSF considers it deprecated.