They should view this kind of situations as a way to gain some positive mindshare. Banks and Oil companies spends tons of money in ads, some CEOs have nominal pays of just a dollar a year... They all try to look good, more so if it's cheap to do so. (The RIAA is just evil and doesn't need to care about PR.)
I have to sacrifice some of my freedoms to ensure the next batch of users down the line have freedoms as well.
And the next batches of users? You may be sacrificing all of their freedoms... (and saying they don't have to use a proprietary version is... how could I express it... "a ridiculous notion"?:P)
It may be for the greater good, but it's not truly free.:)
Yeah, I do understand that, it's just that sometimes it bothers me that some people don't value the common good as much as it deserves;) I guess it's not truly free but freer for humankind than anything else...
You don't like the code's licence, you are free to write your own. You are free to look up the code itself so you can come up with a different implementation and license it however you want:)
The GPL restrictive. If I use GPL code then I am forced to share my modifications with the world. I may not want to, but I have to. It also dictates what I can and can't include with my code because something I may have a license to use, those who try to use my code may not. That sounds an awful lot like restrictions to me.
I think you are getting it wrong. It forces you to share your modifications if you distribute them. You are absolutely free to do whatever you what with that code, for yourself. If you go public, the writers of the parent code chose a license that gives freedom (the four fsf freedoms) to all the users downstream.
Why do you want to private your users/customers/neighbors from that freedom? Why would you like to infringe upon them (the possibility of) a closed source version of your BSD code? Why do you think the people that use the GPL shouldn't try to make their own code to remain free?
I think the point is that a large enterprise should be wise enough to know the difference, especially if they are making (or saving) big bucks. They could do a lot of things for the open source effort without expending any money, like raise awareness of the project among end users, suggesting donations... They are just being less polite than the rest of kids in the block. It is also a good time for MS to make a nice PR move to go along with all those "we love open source" statements they are now proclaiming...
OEMs are companies that sell assembled computers to people. One of these customers asked Canonical if there was some way that they could know how many computers that they send out with Ubuntu on them keep Ubuntu on them.
BTW:
The customer didn't really want to use a unique identifier though, because though it was anonymous, the customer wanted to *count* computers, but unique identifiers are for *tracking* (following a user over time). [...] So, we flashed on this: if each install sent just the model name and the number of times it has updated, systems could be counted, but no unique data would ever be sent to the server.
Yeah, it is like when a vicious disease is eradicated from earth and everyone thanks the scientists responsible instead of denouncing them for reducing biodiversity... What is up with people?
Thank you for being another example of why I really, really don't like the GPL or its users.
"How do we lock this up so the original developers can't use this?"
I'd say you ought to be ashamed, but your sense of shame has likely atrophied away a long time ago. (And you lot do the same to BSD developers on occasion, who are at least nominally "your own." Pathetic.)
More like "How do we free this up so the original developers can still use this and everyone else too?".
If someone forks a project like this, that has an Apache license, using the GPL (so every future user will be Free to use, modify and distribute it), the original author keeps his copyrights to *his* code, he can even relicense it over and over again, as many times and under as many licenses he wants. My code, my terms, their code, their terms (and I'm glad they are choosing Apache and not one of those craptastic microsoft "open licenses";)
Maybe pure politicians don't, but somebody at least at the EU is trying to do something about it, look, they have released their own Free/Open Source Software Licence (sic): http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7774
Anyway, I think they could have just used gpl or whatever other copyleft license, but i guess at least they are indeed promoting an EU-wide open-source policy;)
I wish people would realize that in spite of the many commonalities (including the prefix "Mat"), they are different products with different uses and audiences.
In fact "MATLAB" comes from MATrix LABoratory. Nothing to do with mathematics (semantically).
'Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.'
'All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. '
Two descriptions of Fascism by Benito Mussolini which apply to today's USA perfectly. Though as you rightly point out meaning of the word Fascist has been lost on those who nowadays use it merely as an insult. Those same people are those who usually cannot accept that USA is the archetypal Fascist state, in my view even more Fascist than Italy ever was in the 20s.
And, importantly: For a LOT of the hardware on the market, what's important is the chipset used, not wiring around it. And the "hardware manufacturer" has often only done the wiring.
And that's real reason why most of them (hardware manufacturers) don't want to release free drivers for their devices. They know that the other manufacturers working with the same chipset will be able to use it for free in their competing products... and they don't like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't understand why any of you own a PS3 in the first place.
Really? I mean.......really? You can't think of a single reason why anyone would want one?
Well, the single reason I can think of is hating Microsoft more than Sony. It's tough call though.
Who do you hate more, the guy that killed mommy or the guy that killed daddy? (Think of this as a lyrical exaggeration, of course)
When he says "free", he means "free of patents threats". Of course you can do it "for free", but they will eventually come after you.
Ah, and when you "pass it to the OS", you need to have paid for and OS from a vendor that has paid the licensing...
They should view this kind of situations as a way to gain some positive mindshare. Banks and Oil companies spends tons of money in ads, some CEOs have nominal pays of just a dollar a year... They all try to look good, more so if it's cheap to do so. (The RIAA is just evil and doesn't need to care about PR.)
I have to sacrifice some of my freedoms to ensure the next batch of users down the line have freedoms as well.
And the next batches of users? You may be sacrificing all of their freedoms... (and saying they don't have to use a proprietary version is... how could I express it... "a ridiculous notion"? :P)
It may be for the greater good, but it's not truly free. :)
Yeah, I do understand that, it's just that sometimes it bothers me that some people don't value the common good as much as it deserves ;) I guess it's not truly free but freer for humankind than anything else...
That is a ridiculous notion.
You don't like the code's licence, you are free to write your own. You are free to look up the code itself so you can come up with a different implementation and license it however you want :)
The GPL restrictive. If I use GPL code then I am forced to share my modifications with the world. I may not want to, but I have to. It also dictates what I can and can't include with my code because something I may have a license to use, those who try to use my code may not. That sounds an awful lot like restrictions to me.
I think you are getting it wrong. It forces you to share your modifications if you distribute them. You are absolutely free to do whatever you what with that code, for yourself. If you go public, the writers of the parent code chose a license that gives freedom (the four fsf freedoms) to all the users downstream.
Why do you want to private your users/customers/neighbors from that freedom?
Why would you like to infringe upon them (the possibility of) a closed source version of your BSD code?
Why do you think the people that use the GPL shouldn't try to make their own code to remain free?
I think the point is that a large enterprise should be wise enough to know the difference, especially if they are making (or saving) big bucks. They could do a lot of things for the open source effort without expending any money, like raise awareness of the project among end users, suggesting donations... They are just being less polite than the rest of kids in the block. It is also a good time for MS to make a nice PR move to go along with all those "we love open source" statements they are now proclaiming...
Whaaat?
Kind of, quoting Rick Spencer from Canonical:
OEMs are companies that sell assembled computers to people. One of these customers asked Canonical if there was some way that they could know how many computers that they send out with Ubuntu on them keep Ubuntu on them.
BTW:
The customer didn't really want to use a unique identifier though, because though it was anonymous, the customer wanted to *count* computers, but unique identifiers are for *tracking* (following a user over time). [...] So, we flashed on this: if each install sent just the model name and the number of times it has updated, systems could be counted, but no unique data would ever be sent to the server.
Yeah, it is like when a vicious disease is eradicated from earth and everyone thanks the scientists responsible instead of denouncing them for reducing biodiversity... What is up with people?
So, are you saying all the women in FLOSS are lesbians?
apturl is quite old news: http://linuxhack3r.com/2008/04/05/apturl-in-ubuntu/
More like "How do we free this up so the original developers can still use this and everyone else too?". ;)
If someone forks a project like this, that has an Apache license, using the GPL (so every future user will be Free to use, modify and distribute it), the original author keeps his copyrights to *his* code, he can even relicense it over and over again, as many times and under as many licenses he wants. My code, my terms, their code, their terms (and I'm glad they are choosing Apache and not one of those craptastic microsoft "open licenses"
Maybe pure politicians don't, but somebody at least at the EU is trying to do something about it, look, they have released their own Free/Open Source Software Licence (sic): http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7774 ;)
Anyway, I think they could have just used gpl or whatever other copyleft license, but i guess at least they are indeed promoting an EU-wide open-source policy
Idiocracy (2006): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
I have just used my last mod points in another story, but I think you deserved them. Bravo.
Reality has flashes all around? ;)
No, it is suggested, but you can choose not licensing your feed in the registration process.
You mean the Nokia N810? Sweet device, it can run Debian too :D I have one and it is impressive.
no
A spanish website with screenshoots of how this is handled by IE6, Firefox, Opera and Konqueror: http://www.kriptopolis.org/falsificando-dialogos-firefox
Sadly I am afraid that many Americans would be glad to have a "child molester killer" living next door.