Slashdot Mirror
Open Source/Proprietary - An Issue of Two Codebases?
g00mba_b0y asks: "For the past year I and a small team of developers have been working on an open source targeted, general business application framework. I say targeted because we have not yet selected a licensing model and placed the code in the public domain (we are working on some specific functional targets). I recently demonstrated the framework to a potential client who liked what they saw, and wants to use the software for their flagship product. In addition, they want to hire me to further the development of the framework as well as participate in the development. The sticking point is the structure of the legal agreement. I'm really interested in two things: the experiences of developers who are doing something like this (how did you address the IP issues); and links to any information on this subject."
"We agree in principle that the framework related development that they will be funding should be available for open source licensing, while code related to their business should remain proprietary. The tough part is coming up with a legalese definition of where the boundary lies, and a means of addressing disagreements when they occur.
I've done my homework and found a ton of information on licensing strategies, motivations for OSS, etc., but nothing so far that addresses how companies, who are funding open source initiatives alongside commercial development efforts, draw the line between the two."
The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt homosexuality that is deeply embedded in the movement.
Allow me to explain.
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any heterosexuals on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting heterosexual person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than homosexuals faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.
Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any heterosexual owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single heterosexual person to be seen, and probably none for miles.
More homosexual overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'homosexuals hat' hackers. These 'homosexuals hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'heterosexual hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. homosexuals means good, heterosexual means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see heterosexual lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little heterosexual Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.
It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of homosexual commands with not so hidden symbolism.
It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised homosexual acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All homosexuals Klan) , 'sed' (shoot straight people dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent homosexual symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.
Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden homosexual connotation ? Suffice it to say that the homosexuality pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a homosexual operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!
One of the few sel
Software licensed under an "open-source" license is
<it><b><blink>NOT </blink></b></it>
in the public domain!!1!!!oneone1
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.