There is no year zero because when the calendar was drawn up the concept of zero and negative numbers hadn't been introduced into europe yet. These new ideas only arived when the arabic versions of the ancient greek texts (and arabic additions) were discovered by europeans after the crusade in spain.
It should be noted that general relativity doesn't specify a single equation for gravity, it specifies a set of conditions that an infinite number of equations fullfill. Einstein just chose the simplest equation, which may infact be the wrong choice.
There are a number of known discrepancies in the current theory such as the speed of the outer stars in a galaxy and even the outer planets in our solar system. It has been shown that by adding a 1/r^2 factor to the gravitational equation then both of the problems above are accounted for.
My personal beleif is that astronomers will eventually give up on the dark matter theories.
I agree with RMS on this point: These add-ons aren't value adding, they're freedom subtracting.
On the complexity of using the license, this is a license for bussinessmen, not students or hobbyists. Bookwork is a natural part of running any bussiness. As for there being a new election every week, I think you're being a bit overly pessimistic about it. But as O'Reilly said - The market will determine who's right.
PS I changed the name of the license to reduce the antagonism towards it through the use of the word "copyleft". I've also made a few other changes based on feedback here.
> This license and others like it can >be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct >Revenue-Capture for the > Initial Developer."
> It disregards the role of the unpaid >collaborator who would add features to your >program, because the > initial developer has an advantage >that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain >nor circumvent. > This is a disincentive to the unpaid >collaborator because instead of contributing work >to the > community they are now contributing >work that someone else will be paid for no matter >what they > do.
Bruce, you should have read my license before opening your mouth. It makes it quite clear in the definitions section that an "Author" is anyone who contributes code to the project. Under the stewardship section it then specifies that each author has just a single vote, regardless of contribution. So even if Linux were licensed under the NCL, Linus would have no special rights under it.
> It makes collaborative development >unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own >revenue > capture, you would soon have a >too-expensive product or a paperwork and >procedural mess. Who > decides how much each developer >gets?
Again, as a leader in the free software community you have the responsibility to actually *read the entire license*, rather than just rely on the quickly written preamble. All of these decissions rest in the hands of the steward of the work who is elected by the the authors, each with one vote.
>So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue >capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
I understand your fears about collaboration and free reuse of code, that is the sole reason I included the stewardship system in the license. Without a guarantee of these freedoms the license couldn't be called free. I believe that this license will protect these freedoms, although only experience will tell.
I didn't write the license out of some kind of selfish grab for money at the expense of the freedoms of others. I wrote it because:
1) The free software community is bigger than the FSF, yet they are the only beneficiaries of any donations from people like Cheapbytes. The distribution of reward should be more even throughout the community.
2) There are a great many programmes that just do not lend themselves to offering consultancy services. How do you offer consulting for a game, or a genealogical programme? Home users will never purchase consulting services, so the only way to make money in this environment is to sell the software. My intention in this respect is to provide some motivation for programmers to write these sort of programmes professionally.
As I said, only experience will show if the license works properly, but I believe that it is atleast worth a try. The GNU GPL itself was a radical idea at the time, so I don't see how a supporter of it can then turn around and refuse to even support a trial of a license that contains a new idea.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no year zero because when the calendar was drawn up the concept of zero and negative numbers hadn't been introduced into europe yet. These new ideas only arived when the arabic versions of the ancient greek texts (and arabic additions) were discovered by europeans after the crusade in spain.
It should be noted that general relativity
doesn't specify a single equation for gravity,
it specifies a set of conditions that an infinite
number of equations fullfill. Einstein just
chose the simplest equation, which may infact
be the wrong choice.
There are a number of known discrepancies in the
current theory such as the speed of the outer
stars in a galaxy and even the outer planets in
our solar system. It has been shown that by
adding a 1/r^2 factor to the gravitational
equation then both of the problems above are
accounted for.
My personal beleif is that astronomers will
eventually give up on the dark matter theories.
I agree with RMS on this point: These add-ons aren't value adding, they're freedom subtracting.
On the complexity of using the license, this is a license for bussinessmen, not students or hobbyists. Bookwork is a natural part of running any bussiness. As for there being a new election every week, I think you're being a bit overly pessimistic about it. But as O'Reilly said - The market will determine who's right.
PS
I changed the name of the license to reduce the antagonism towards it through the use of the word "copyleft". I've also made a few other changes based on feedback here.
Matthew Parry,
Bowerbird Computing.
> This license and others like it can >be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct >Revenue-Capture for the
> Initial Developer."
> It disregards the role of the unpaid >collaborator who would add features to your >program, because the
> initial developer has an advantage >that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain >nor circumvent.
> This is a disincentive to the unpaid >collaborator because instead of contributing work >to the
> community they are now contributing >work that someone else will be paid for no matter >what they
> do.
Bruce, you should have read my license before opening your mouth. It makes it quite clear in the definitions section that an "Author" is anyone who contributes code to the project. Under the stewardship section it then specifies that each author has just a single vote, regardless of contribution. So even if Linux were licensed under the NCL, Linus would have no special rights under it.
> It makes collaborative development >unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own >revenue
> capture, you would soon have a >too-expensive product or a paperwork and >procedural mess. Who
> decides how much each developer >gets?
Again, as a leader in the free software community you have the responsibility to actually *read the entire license*, rather than just rely on the quickly written preamble. All of these decissions rest in the hands of the steward of the work who is elected by the the authors, each with one vote.
>So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue >capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
I understand your fears about collaboration and free reuse of code, that is the sole reason I included the stewardship system in the license. Without a guarantee of these freedoms the license couldn't be called free. I believe that this license will protect these freedoms, although only experience will tell.
I didn't write the license out of some kind of selfish grab for money at the expense of the freedoms of others. I wrote it because:
1) The free software community is bigger than the FSF, yet they are the only beneficiaries of any donations from people like Cheapbytes. The distribution of reward should be more even throughout the community.
2) There are a great many programmes that just do not lend themselves to offering consultancy services. How do you offer consulting for a game, or a genealogical programme? Home users will never purchase consulting services, so the only way to make money in this environment is to sell the software. My intention in this respect is to provide some motivation for programmers to write these sort of programmes professionally.
As I said, only experience will show if the license works properly, but I believe that it is atleast worth a try. The GNU GPL itself was a radical idea at the time, so I don't see how a supporter of it can then turn around and refuse to even support a trial of a license that contains a new idea.
Matthew Parry
Bowerbird Computing.