Slashdot Mirror
MS-Funded Study Attacks GPL3 Draft Process
QCMBR writes "A new Microsoft-funded study by a Harvard Business School professor concludes that developers don't want extensive patent licensing requirements in the GPL3. There are significant problems with the study, however, especially given the very small sample size. 'Although 332 emails were sent to various developers, only 34 agreed to participate in the survey — an 11 percent response rate. Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.' Ars points out that the GPL3 draft editing and review process is highly transparent and inclusive 'to an extent that makes MacCormack's claims of under-representation seem difficult to accept given the small sample size of the study and the number of respondents who contribute to non-GPL projects.'"
Really.
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
...Steve
Oh, no! Not an "atack"!
I mean seriously, whatever.
Microsoft is a tack....
A FSF-funded survey concludes that MS sucks!
Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.
And I never got one of these emails. Now to be fair I only stayed on part of the first round of the draft process but I was a member of Committee D which was for smaller F/OSS projects....somehow I feel my working on Wine and ReactOS had nothing to do with the fact I was not invited to be part of this study....
sedwards
A MS-funded study says the GPL3 is a badly done job? Then Stallman must be going in the right direction after all!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The piece also leaves a bit to be desired. While it states "Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.", it neglects to mention how many. Of course, I can't be fucked actually reading the study (it is in PDF after all...). But other then that, it looks OK.
On to the study it self, I agree with the authors point that far more then 34 people have participated in the drafting of the GPL v3. Not only GNU folks, but major corporations.
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open. The Free Software Foundation could easily have hidden with some lawyers for a couple of months and then simply presented the new GPL. Obviously all the FSF stuff would go over, as would quite a lot of other stuff that has the V2 or later clause. Most developers aren't lawyers, and I'm sure that they would accept the new GPL, even if they didn't have a say in drafting it (compare version two), so long as it looks alright.
Conclusion, the study is stupid and a waste of time. While I don't use the GPL for my own projects (preferring something simpler), they are quite simple projects. For anything major, the GPL does the job, and will no doubt continue to do the job well into the future.
I wank in the shower.
Must be good, send it to print!
Got Code?
you would think that if microsoft really did think the GPL hindered opensource they'd do well to keep quiet about it to hinder the competition it would have brought- instead they make empty threats and use a flawed study to support their assertion
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
This prevents them from having a valid opinion of the GPLv3? Maybe they have good reasons for not using the GPL that should be taken into account?
I mean honestly, if you survey 2000 GPL fan boys, what do you suppose they will say about the GPLv3?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"MS-FUDed Study Atacks GPL3 Draft Process" ?
I'm so glad it was an independent and unbiased study.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
would this not indicate a high degree of apathy which tends to bear out the main point?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Another bullshit "study" funded by Microsoft. How is this news?
The best part is that Microsoft has now become the single best reason *to* embrace the GPL3. And to think I ever had doubted.
Quack, quack.
...exactly what does this have to do with My Rights Online? I'd put it under "Politics" and be done with it.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
In the past Microsoft sniffed and derided the GPL and anything vaguely open source as communist or just plain non-capitalist and generally plain ignored it. Now they're actually funding studies to tell us how about it is, and not only that, they have an agenda of what parts they don't like about it - namely patent reform.
Considering the rather silly deal Microsoft struck with Novell, and the silly deals they'd like to strike with other Linux vendors to get the message across to the corporate sector that if you use open source software you pay Microsoft for IP, this looks a touch suspicious. Maybe the FSF have touched a bit of a nerve somewhere.
It's incredibly funny and rather unbelievably naive that Microsoft would think that anything like this would sway anyone's opinions, certainly in the same manner as one of their 'Get the Facts' studies or one of those 'Windows Server beats everyone' studies. They really haven't learned a whole lot over the years. For them to claim the open source developers, the people who they've derided and don't have much time for Microsoft either, are under represented just seems like quite an above average desperate move.
I haven't made up my mind concerning GPL3, but Microsoft's war against it is nearly enough to sway me towards GPL3. Microsoft is using cross licensing agreements, and attempting to herd Free Software into a commercial vendor only arena (Novell). Once there, they can compete with and or kill it using the usual dirty tricks. So if the question is "Where do you want to go today"? The answer is somewhere free of Microsoft.
MC
in this day and age, and on slashdot in particular, isn't "MS funded" synonymous with "/ignore"?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
MS cannot fund any study ever without F, U, 'n' D
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
34 out of 332? That's an *abysmal* response rate and pretty much means that the study is entirely worthless, no matter what the conclusions are or who actually answered.
butter the donkey
The new GPL - which will undermine all of M$'s FUD claims over patents because of Novell's vouchers not having dates on them - is thought to be bad by some who was paid by... M$! I'm shocked.
I'm also more shocked, genuinely that Harvard allows people who conduct "studies" like this to be professors... It's just shocking incompetence. I'd be amazed if you could pass an MBA doing shit like this
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
The funniest thing is that the paper is titled ""A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License."
Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
OK, I know that fake studies are a part of Microsoft's standard operating procedure for affecting the standards and codes proposed by governing bodies, but where's the rest? Shouldn't Microsoft be giving zero-interest "loans" to RMS, sending Eben Moglen to play golf in Scotland (a fact-finding tour), and buying a powerboat for Linus?
Seriously, though, who gives a crap what a Harvard professor, funded or unfunded, with or without a good sample size, claims the average developer wants? The GPL is not supposed to be populist, it's supposed to achieve a purpose. A purpose that most of the world - heck, even much if not most of Slashdot's readership - has never fully grasped. A purpose that is diametrically opposed to software patents.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Who TF invited MS$ to the GPL3 party??
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
With 34 replies this assumes at best a 17% error on the results. Now if there were biases in the respondents and or survey the error could be much higher which means this survey tells us nothing... no shock. A network news political poll usually has thousands of respondents, done as objectively as possible, and it still has 4% error.
At least they had a choice. Any guesses on how many developers who didn't like the parade of Microsoft licenses (for the OS, tools, etc) got to choose a different licensing instead of what Microsoft rammed down their throats?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Judging by his faculty biography, Alan D. MacCormack is much like the virgin who writes about sex. He writes a lot about software development, but there is no evidence that he has actually done any.
I take it you didn't bother to read the actual study. If you had, you'd have to agree that what they're saying does make sense.
A lot of it revolves around the decades-old debate between the BSD- or MIT-styled licenses, and the GPL-styled licenses. Essentially, what we find is that those who scream the loudest about giving freedom often are actually the biggest proponents of limiting it. That's what we have with the GPLv2, for instance. It puts some pretty serious restrictions on what can be done with modified code, for instance. It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.
Meanwhile, those who use licenses like the BSD license or the MIT license tend to be more focused on technical excellency. But by not focusing as much on the freedom-related issues, they actually tend to offer far greater liberties when it comes to using, modifying, redistributing and profiting from their work. Their attitude tends to be one of "do whatever you want, just keep our license and disclaimer notices intact". So in the end, everyone in the community has a far greater degree of freedom as to how they want to use, modify, redistribute, etc., the software. Freedom is maximized, as much as is practically so.
But maybe they do fear the GPLv3's value in fighting their patent FUD (one of the things the study hates the most) if they can't even wait until the thing is finished before attacking it?
Or maybe they hope to influence the process and get them to drop that clause given the theory that the vouchers distributed as part of the Novell-Microsoft deal could put them in hot water if they ever decided to assert their patents?
In an off-topic note, does anyone actually know anyone with a voucher? I'm wondering if the problem is theoretical, or if some people actually have SLES vouchers they intend to redeem after the GPLv3 is finalized, so as to tie Microsoft's hands with respect to patent FUD? As of yet, I haven't seen anyone post who has one, nor do I even know how you get them.
That Gartner didn't get a cut of the money.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think it is quite clear that most people who release there source under GPL does so to ensure that they can always have access to it, even after other people have made changes to it.
If a company then can go and make changes to your code, and add patented technology which you are not allowed to used, then you are pretty fucked, right?
Why should anybody not want to be protected against this?
Here's a summary of the developer data used in the study, see pp 21-22.
Demographic Group
Pragmatists 19
Intellectuals 8
Philosophers 7
GPLv2 / LGPL / GPLv2+Commercial: 20
included: Linux, MySQL, XenSource, Snort, Amanda, JBoss, GCC Toolchain
Non-GPL: 14
Includes:Apache, PHP, Apache Geronimo, Perl, PostgreSQL, Eclipse
Raw Data:
Amanda 2
Apache 4
Apache Geronimo 3
Eclipse 1
GCC Toolchain 4
Jboss 3
Linux Kernel 7
MySQL 1
Perl 2
PHP 2
PostgreSQL 2
Snort 2
XenSource 1
Another informal poll of Linux system administrators - which had me as the sole respondent - concluded that Microsoft will say anything if they think it reflects negatively upon open source. This poll has a margin of error of +inf.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
If developers don't like the licensing changes in the GPLv3, they are always free to use GPLv2, BSD, or any other OSI-approved license. Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
And I base that on what they do with Microsoft Research.
/., that does not translate into the corporate world ignoring them. This sort of study, at the most innocuous level, will make little to no impact. It will not incite CTOs the world over to burst into angry vitriolic nonsense of the ilk being shown on Slashdot. Or...it might just strike a nerve with them, and therefore a blow against GPL, open source, Linux, etc.
As for the rest of this article, already 95% of the comments are completely worthless "boo Microsoft is so evil" themes. If you want to make an impact in the business world you'd better try and come up with something a little more mature than that.
I read another comment that said "Microsoft-funded means automatic ignore, especially on Slashdot". Close but no cigar. One, did you ever stop to count just how many MS stories get posted to Slashdot? The "editors" know that's a sure way to get loads of angry comments, which translates into page views which translates into $$$. (Given how much Slashdotters love to use that puerile M$ tag, maybe any Microsoft story should now get tagged as $la$hdot flamebait.)
And two, no matter the reaction on
Think about it.
<doomed fate="obscurity" cause="GPL3">
<Free Software/>
<Godless Commie Open Source Developers/>
<Open Standards/>
</doomed>
<doomed fate="failure">
<All non-Microsoft clients/>
</doomed>
</future>
...a study commissioned by Phillip Morris has revealed that people really do want to get lung cancer.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Well, then, perhaps somebody can mail the researcher this thread tomorrow and see if we can't generate more than 34 insightful responses for him. Hey, we want this guy to have good data and make appropriate conclusions from it.
I posted this entry on my blog the other day - as a small developer unable to compete with massive patent portfolios, I believe that Patents + GPL3 is the only way for Open Source to weather the patent storm.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I can't wait to hear what someone would say about that...
Oh ... let's not wait
Finding One - Microsoft Values Open Source as a Development Model
Let others develop the code while we steal it.
Finding Two - Microsoft Values Building on Others' Work
Let's face it, we couldn't have dunnit by ourselves.
Finding Three - Microsoft wants Choice in Licensing
Yep, the more open source licenses the better. Especially ones where I get to to use your code without any payback.
Finding Four - Microsoft Likes Interactions between Open and Closed Source
Yep, we love it when OSS code does not work with our code. It keeps our monopoly position strong. We don't have to resort to further criminal acts like we did with windows on DOS7.
Finding Five - Microsoft wants Flexibility
Yep, I don't want to be hamstrung, do I.
Theme Six - Microsoft want Choice, not Mandates
We don't need no stinkin GPL.
Summary
The Micorosoft we interviewed clearly articulated their desire for "flexibility," "choice," and "freedom" for themselves and no-one else.
Since it was my major at college, I think I may safely assure you that an 11% response pretty much only can have 2 meanings:
Either people were afraid of repercussions for answering it, or people were absolutely and completely indifferent to it.
In turn, those that do answer either answer because they know they agree with a certain commonly agreed stance, or they had to push an agenda (and thus didn't answer honestly, but in the way that furthers their own agenda).
Either way, the statistics is best kept in close vicinity to the loo, in case you're running low on toilet paper.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Too much coffee this morning, huh?
Microsoft attempts to discredit GNU/Free Software
Nothing new.
'Nothing to see here move along please'
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
No, but I do expect public companies to tell the truth. M$ is a disgrace.
What's worse is that someone at Harvard would agree to publish such bullshit. Harvard Business School just lost a large chunk of their reputation, if the summary is not itself a lie. No, looking at the paper this guy from Keystone Strategy Inc really has sold his and Harvard's reputation.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack why he is immune from Steve_Balmer_Chair_Throwing()
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open.
If the purpose was to create Open/Free conflict, they have failed miserably. The M$/Novel deal and M$ saber rattling about patents has done a great job of justifying every sentiment in the first drafts. Community input has clarified the wording and that helps too. The author might have gotten a better reception if he had managed to finish this FUD attack a few weeks ago. As things stand, they have a far more unified free software community. The backfire from all of this is an order of magnitude worse than the SCO case.
M$'s intentions have been laid bare and all of their talk about "building bridges" and "interoperability" and so on and so forth is empty and meaningless. They want to charge money for other people's work and would claim ownership through bogus patents. Is there anyone outside of Fortune who will listen to them now?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually GPL v2 gives the licensee the option of using the current GPL license or any future version of the GPL license if I'm not mistaken. I've seen several instances where that line was stripped from the license text - but it's there by default.
I've never heard Microsoft refer to open source as "open sores" or "Linsux". Do you figure that lends credence to your arguments?
This is a nice confirmation that GPL 3 is definitely on the right track.
:-)
Always nice to hear Eben is getting it right
Insert
When the GPLv3 comes out, we'll see whether software developers want to use it for their projects because they are free to choose. Personally, I plan on choosing it for my projects.
That's unlike Microsoft software, where many users use it because they don't have a choice. Personally, I have half a dozen Microsoft Windows licenses even though I don't actually use Windows and don't want those licenses.
That survey requests are very common. If I answered every survey that was sent to me, I would waste like 3 days a year doing that. 15 minutes here, 5 minutes adds up. It doesn't surprise me that such a low percent responded.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
I took the time to skim one of his other papers. It's another PDF, so I won't post the link. You can find it on his publications page.
The real challenge in sociological research as someone as already pointed out is gaining access to unbiased information. Failing that, the researcher will need to do factor analysis in order to remove underlying biases or at least address those issues.
The paper that I skimmed has none of the required analysis nor does it address the underlying biases present in his information sources. His paper does not address or even acknowledge that the sources of information he uses could contain biases that prejudice conclusions.
It is tempting to draw malicious inferences concerning the author based on his research conclusions. I prefer to view this in terms of Hanlon's Razor.
Some evidence of this is as follows:
In short, his papers will be given far more weight than deserved since he is a faculty member at the Harvard Business School.
As an aside: Had I turned in a paper similar to this for my undergrad sociological methods class, I would have been lucky to get a C.
The GPL allows people to use excellent software, without cost, with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute that software. However, there are some strings attached. Is there and element of greed to that? Yes, there is. I agree that the GPL is as much a constitution as a software silence, and that's how I like it. Even those under the banner of freedom need laws and regulations. The existence of laws may seem contrary to the concept of freedom, but that is not true. Just as a kite cannot truly fly without a string, FOSS cannot flourish unless there is a code of conduct. I am not donating to free software projects so they can become one-way code farms for proprietary software companies.
The software you write is nothing more than instructions for machines to execute. Comparing it to living breathing people is a joke.
Were you serious when you wrote this line, "To me, the whole "BSD is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with your code" is akin to "Country Xyzpdq is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with anybody". That argument falls short pretty quickly when people start going around taking your stuff or killing your friends or family. BSD license = ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!
MIT/BSD and GPL licenses have different traps and different benefits.
I would argue that those involved in BSD licensed projects are either interested in technical experimentation (i.e. the Postgres founders), or are interested in reference implementations, while those who advocate the GPL are interested in avoiding proprietary competition with their projects.
It is just about proprietary competition and the role that plays in a project. In short it should be an economic rather than a religious argument.
However, you can't get this out of the MS viewpoint. Apache eventually went to a license which included the very provisions that Microsoft is railing against-- the patent clauses that IBM first floated in the IPL a number of years ago.
MS has raised valid concerns over the GPL in the past but these are not among them. The big one I remember is the fact that it is not specific at all, relying on local jurisdictions to determine what the license allows (there is no universally accepted test for what a "derivative work" is). Even Red Hat has acknowledged this as a potential issue, and I am personally concerned about the possibility of venue shopping which would create a huge no-man's land in what is acceptable. The preoccupation with the linking clause also leads to bizarre issues when indirect linking occurs (for example, to the latest proprietary Oracle driver via ODBC). You cannot tell me that there is *any* issue of derivation here.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit.
Right, because if you modify my child, say by replacing his arm with a laser gun, I want to be able to benefit from the modification for home repairs and such when he's on leave from your borg army. That's how the GPL works.
only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.
You're right, your argument is totally sane and well thought out.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
As a developer who tends toward BSD, I'm more likely to use GPLv3 specifically because of its patent protections (still not sure if I ultimately will, but...)
Now that Microsoft has made its strategy of patent bullying clear, why on earth would you specifically oppose erecting defenses against it? Remember, the existing patent defenses in GPLv2 are the only thing that is keeping Microsoft from going after RedHat and other Linux distributors right now. Microsoft has said as much!
Well, they don't list how they chose the developers, and only 11% of the people they emailed responded. That's hardly a scientific study and it's being put forth by a party with a vested interest. If you expect me to take it seriously, given that Microsoft is brandishing patent FUD and the GPLv3's provision to fight that FUD is the main target of this "survey", you're insane. It reminds me of all those commercials saying "4 out of 5 doctors agree: use our product!" making it sound like they have an 80% approval rate when the sample is utterly meaningless because they only surveyed FIVE doctors, probably not even randomly chosen...
As for ye olde GPL vs. BSD, the GPL is sharing, the BSD is a gift. Yes, I like getting gifts, but sharing with one another is the best way to make sure that we all have as much wealth as possible, rather than having it accumulate with those who refuse to give gifts. Sadly, it creates the perverse incentive to get ahead by never giving but always taking. What? You say that you could refuse gifts to those who don't share? That's what the GPL does, and you apparently dislike.
With the GPL sharing model, those who don't share get left out, meaning that we create an incentive to share rather than an incentive to hoard. So yes, the BSD will maximize the number of gifts ("freedom"), but the GPL will maximize the total wealth (also "freedom" to some) by avoiding perverse incentives.
So yeah, we can cast it all in terms of "FREEDOM!" (I mean, who could be against that? You're probably a terrorist if you hate freedom!) but it's probably better to think in terms of what's best for everyone (i.e. not just me). And as a mathematician who took game theory, I'm going to tell you, the sharing model is strictly dominant. Period. Look up 'tit for tat' if you don't believe me, it's the same principle. It takes two to share.
Say what you like, but sharing isn't going away and it is a good thing. Well, except to the **AA.
You are correct. So long as the option is there it may be exercised. Linux, for instance, does not have the "or later" statement in some (most?) of it's code, which is why it probably won't relicensed under GPLv3.
A BSD license is like allowing you children to be enslaved??? Say what?!?! Allow me to continue your analogy for you. Developers of BSD licensed software are like sperm donors (take this and turn it into anything you want) and GPL licensers are like people that arrange their childrens marriages (you can have it but only if I'm going to get something out of it). And as far as you not getting how the GPL takes away freedom, what do you think the whole purpose of a license is??? The only reason to license software is to impose limits on it's use. Yes, GPL is better than no license at all but it still places restrictions on the use. The only reason that there is a MIT or BSD (without that attribution clause) license is simply because placing software, or any authors work, directly in to the public domain is a gray area in several countries.
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Bear sh*ts in the woods...
is this a new way of pulling statistics out of an *ss with "realistic" figures? (heh go figure)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
.. it's supposed to be a bed-time story so you can go sleep better .. so go sleep .. count them little GPL3 sheep!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
A personal study tells you can never be 100% sure in a study, so who says you are 100% sure you can't create a biased study?
Is this study biased?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Why would Microsoft do a study on GPLv3 right now? I think that in trying to answer that question everyone can easily conclude what exactly is behind this study.
Microsoft fears GPLv3 quite a bit because it will effectively block deals like the one it made with Novell, and those deals are the only thing they favor as a way of dealing with the GNU/Linux threat because it seemingly validates their supposed patent rights over GNU/Linux and provides them some control over what is happening in the GNU/Linux industry. If they could make such deals with all commercial GNU/Linux vendors they'd be able to influence it significantly.
But GPLv3 is ruining that dream.
So what else are we to expect than Microsoft trying its best to downplay this license? I am not at all surprised to see this. It was expectable.
nuff said
The GPL zealots will call this astroturf simply because it makes claims that they don't want to hear; namely that there genuinely are some people in the world who don't want Richard Stallman making decisions for them.
You can say whatever you like; the reality is that version 3 of the GPL genuinely is enormously unpopular. I didn't need this survey to tell me that.
Just because you yourselves might worship Stallman as God, it doesn't mean that he genuinely is. What that also means is that if he tries to do things which the majority do not want, he ultimately will not be able to.
Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
He himself won't, no...he just uses his cult members to do it for him.
The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
I know you're not going to want to be considered a brainwashed drone, so here's a hint; rote sloganeering in this manner does not work to promote the impression of you as being someone who is capable of independent thought.
Some developers don't like the GPLv3. That is fine. But for those people among us who do, we shouldn't be forced to abandon our principles in order to compromise with people who don't have the same goals. The GPLv3 is just another license in the "free market" of licenses. Choose one at your leisure.
And it's late and my grammar sucks...
A tool that I created, but isn't perfect... it can be improved, changed, modified for new situations I didn't think about. A tool that anyone can use, regardless of color, creed or persuasion. That's why I say, fuck the GPL. Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever. No stipulations. Use it, abuse it, pimp it, delete it. Who cares. I got my use out of it and I'm contributing it for the betterment of everyone, not just a select subset of people I choose to like.
GNU/Linux is the number one choice of terrorists. It is a horrible movement that must be stopped. We should praise Microsoft by blessing us with speed bumps in the path of RMS and all those other hippies. I used to be a fan of BSD-style licenses more then I was of the GPL. I used to see the GPL as a noose around the neck, and it is: for developers who intend to maintain control of their code that would give them an economical advantage over anyone else just picking it up. What the GPL does is it makes sure no one is in charge. It pretty much turns code into a public domain resource while keeping all of the fruits of the community's labor from being picked by one entity. The GPL can be compared to a library. Anyone can check out books, but they must be returned. It has more of an educational value then an economical one, which makes it appealing for philosophical reasons. Now don't get me wrong, this is not a reason why BSD-like licenses are bad or anything, because they are not. BSD style licenses are almost exactly the same thing as the GPL is, except most allow commercial use, and some require credit to be given. I don't even consider this the difference myself, it is the cause of the difference. Both of these reasons are not evil ones. If I spend a month writing some sort of physics engine, I would like to be known for it, and if it is good, I might like to get payed for it. It seems that the niche of BSD-style is for projects which are run by a group. while GPL projects are generally open to everyone. A bunch of "BSD supporters" say that BSD licensed projects have higher quality code. This may be true of some projects due to the closer knit group of developers, but really, does it matter as long as we get from point A to point B?
...for the embedded guys to take the work for free of huge numbers of people who work on the kernel, then they add some pittance driver and that makes them *special*, they don't wanna share back, it'll hurt their bottom line or some crap.
Sound like greed-tards to me, who should just write their whole stack, including the kernel.
You either "get" open source, and how everyone benefits by mutual sharing, or you don't, trying to have it both ways makes ya look stoopid/greedy/incompetent.
I think people here are missing the point, GPL isn't a fucking freedom parade, its protection for software that would otherwise just be stolen and used elsewhere. If anything BSD makes that more likely to happen, not less likely.
GPL protects projects that want to focus on making good code, knowing that their efforts will be appreciated by others and not just ripped off, if you don't like that don't use GPL code and shut the fuck up about it.
The original idea was not to make everything as free as possible, this isn't a world of absolutes its merely necessary to compete with companies that can and do steal code.
Don't like GPL3, use another license!
It's that simple.
If Microsoft funds a study that says a few developers don't want to use GPL3 then, well, fine; nobody is forcing those developers to use GPL3. They can just continue using GPL2, BSD, Apache or whatever license they want.
So why would anybody really care about this study? If it turns out that most developers indeed don't want to use GPL3, they just won't use GPL3 and it'll be the end of that. In short; this study has no impact whatsoever.
If you had a study which concluded that most people prefer Pepsi to Coca cola, does that mean that Coca cola shouldn't be allowed any more?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Thank you.
Yes, I know it's offtopic; mod me down if it's that important to you.
(Do you smell something burning?)
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
Selecting a small number of a larger set has a variability of the whole that is the square root of the number.
E.g. throwing a dice three times and getting an average of 2 means your dice have an average of 2+/- sqrt(3). Probably biased but not certain.
The GPLv2 itself does not offer this option. The option is part of the statement recommended by the FSF stating that your code is subject to the GPL.
One of the small ironies here being that the Apache Public License 2.0 which about half of those guys are using already provides those protections. So, putting them into GPL3 may ultimately make those licenses compatible and broaden the available set of libraries they can use.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
GPL protects projects that want to focus on making good code, knowing that their efforts will be appreciated by others and not just ripped off, if you don't like that don't use GPL code and shut the fuck up about it.
I appreciate that you mention that the GPL isn't in fact "a freedom parade." What I primarily don't like is that the FSF insists on claiming that it is.
I'm also again told to shut up. I really am noticing, as I said earlier, that a consistent theme among FOSS advocates is a tendency to write people off as being devoid of integrity (a shill etc) and insist that they shut up if said people say anything you don't want to hear.
I'm sorry if it offends you that I refuse to conform to the standard FOSS groupthink. However, I'm also not going to do so.