I can understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host GPL3 projects, considering that GPL3 contains clauses that were written specifically to attack Microsoft and Novell (it also contains clauses meant to attack Tivo). Why would Microsoft want to host projects under anti-Microsoft licenses? Anyway, I see no proof that CodePlex doesn't allow GPL3.
So the GPL v3 is not an open source license, right according to bullets 10, as use of the license is predicated by the condition that the platform does not verify that the source code is valid.
Of course, I could be wrong and the GPL v3 can be used on such hardware platforms.
Could you show me where it plainly states that the GPL v3 is not allowed for projects hosted on CodePlex?
From the Codeplex use agreement when you sign up to create a new project:
You must select one of the listed licenses to govern your Project ("Project License"). The license You select (the "Project License") will appear in the license text box of your Project...in the event another license, or other terms or conditions, appear on, in or are otherwise referenced in your project, you agree that the Project License will control your Project.
You don't get to see the list of acceptable licenses until after you sign up for a project, but when you do, the list is as follows:
So you do agree that you are wrong. In the use agreement they do not expressly say that you cannot release your code under the GPL v3. I can even prove that they do allow projects under the GPL v3, where you have only proved yourself wrong.
Go ahead and search for GNU GPL on CodePlex. Or better yet search for restarts, Inter.NET, or openLabel while you are proving yourself wrong.
Open Source must conform to the Open Source Definition [opensource.org], which lists ten points. Free Software must respect the Four Freedoms [gnu.org] that the FSF enumerated.
Who says?
The FSF? And who elected them to be the open source police?
They're just an organization that's trying to force their beliefs and definitions on others. And there are a few things that I disagree with them on and I'll be damned if they're going to force their values on me. I even avoid their stuff so as to distance myself from them.
No one really has to follow it. But it is an excepted industry standard. If it were not people would not care if their license was OSI Approved.
You can release a Open Source license that is not approved by the OSI and guess what no one would lift an eyebrow. There are Open source licenses that are not approved by OSI. And guess what? They still call themselves "Open Source".
...as long as it's black. There are a few licenses that you can't have on Codeplex (like GPLv3, for instance, although GPLv2 is allowed).
Also:
Could you show me where it plainly states that the GPL v3 is not allowed for projects hosted on CodePlex? Last I checked there were projects that were licensed under the GPL versions 2 - 3.
'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?)
It's not trademarked, but they did define it.
You are correct "open source" is not a trademark but is suppose to be a standard. If you check out the history of the OSI, you wil find that the OSD is intended to define a standard by which to judge a projects openness.
You, my friend, are incorrect. There is a difference in unsupported and forbidden, as proven by these: Inter.Net, restarts, openLabels. If GPL v3 were forbidden then these would not be hosted on the site at all.
Of course, I know that there will probably be some counter-argument about they had to use some ad-hoc method to show the license. However, these projects' preferred license is hidden because I just searched for GNU GPL and up they popped.
Even your source gives no conclusive evidence that CodePlex does not allow GPL v3 projects. His link points to a request to reinstate custom licenses on CodePlex. The blogger goes as far to use the term "so it seems".
Also there is no requirement that a project hosted on CodePlex has to be for Windows. So where did you get you information?
Don't get me wrong you are free to hate Microsoft, and hate on Microsoft, but please keep it to the facts please.
Re:amazing what doesnt get asked
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
I agree. The way I see it Microsoft is actually promoting competition. The real battle isn't Java vs C# but JVM vs CLR. One of the things that is interesting is the fact that the flexibility of CIL and the CLR has allowed not only the native OO languages to be developed but also functional and dynamic languages. The JVM has similar capabilities but some things like tail recursion optimization are not as good. But because of the competition I suspect that the JVM team will not surpass what MS has as they already do in certain aspects.
Both you and the post you qouted are incorrect. The quoted post is incorrect because any application that excepts input from the keyboard has an infinite data structure in it. Streams, stacks and queues are infinite data structures. A lot of games rely on linked list which is another infinite data structure.
If you look at most if not all the "mainstream" languages they do support infinite data structures. Let me give you a list. The C++ STL contains definitions for vectors, stacks, queues, and deques. The BCL of the.Net Library supports stacks, list, and sequences, and streams.
Now the real pitfall of Haskell is that it shoves functional programming down your throat when you use it. I know what you're thinking,"So does Java,and C#." But OOP is funny in that it allows a lot to go on under the hood. You can program functionally, or imperatively. That is why such laguages as Scala, F#, and OCaml are able to exist along side Java, C#, and C++.
Microsoft does have an important place in computing history but it isn't the hardware game. Microsoft's best and arguably worst contribution to history was Windows as a programming platform on the PC. If not for Windows, software would still be very hardware specific. Both Apple and IBM wanted to lock consumers into using their hardware.(Apple is still doing it) But Microsoft came along and provided non-Big Blue PC compatible hardware vendors a basic API to write to. And since without any specific hardware ties, it was easier to get behind Windows than OS/2, or MacOS. Microsoft's good legacy is the popularization of common APIs for GUIs for the common man. X was around but tied to Unix which was still thought of as server only OS. Some of you weren't around during the pre-Windows days. It wasn't fun. I was around for the transition. I remember software coming with hardware drivers designed to make the hardware work in a reasonably consistant way.
The "hijacking part is/. sensationalism to get more reads and to promote the populatopn of the why hate Micorsoft mentality. IF the OP did not have this motive in mind, that person would have titled the summary something more appropriate like "Are Open Source licenses getting too confusing?". However, because the OP knew that most people on here would like to express why they hate Microsoft, s/he decided to focus more on one example given in the article than the actual content.
I find it funny how somany of the articles about Linux, Free Software, etc. are about MS. It is almost like the free software community has a FUD campaign against MS. Let revise that the zealots are doing as much.
Of course, if anyone reads this I'll probably get labelled some kind of MS affiliate. Do you know why? It will be more zealot FUD to discredit my opinion and logic.
Funny isn't it how an article that had nothing to do with MS except passivve reference to its OSI-Approved licenses and their unapproved derivatives transformed into an article about MS trying to hijack the open source, oh wait, FOSS community.
Wow you actually got the same meaning that I got from this article. The OP just focused on the example that was given in the article. The actually subject of the article was that open source licensing has gotten really crowded. It was talking about having to carefully inspect the licenses. But because the author used a MS license as a reference/.er went into attack M$ mode. I wonder how many saw that the OSI had actually approved the Ms-PL and Ms-RL.
I understand that there is founded concerns about the dealings of big corporations, but not everything is requires a secret decoder ring.
That sounds about like RMS and FSF. The FSF claims to promote free software but they promote only GNU Free Software. So basically I really don't think that they care too much about the open source community just the GNU community. So, Mr Griswold seems to have hit the nail on the head. The real question is what happens if the poster child for the FSF is not GPLv3.
Some people need to realize that the Free Software Foundation did not create open source software. Nor do they control it.
I'm sorry but it seems you are having config issues with FF. I am able to use hotmail just fine from Firefox 2.0. Also how are you going to blame MS for something that Cisco did? Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host GPL3 projects, considering that GPL3 contains clauses that were written specifically to attack Microsoft and Novell (it also contains clauses meant to attack Tivo). Why would Microsoft want to host projects under anti-Microsoft licenses? Anyway, I see no proof that CodePlex doesn't allow GPL3.
So the GPL v3 is not an open source license, right according to bullets 10, as use of the license is predicated by the condition that the platform does not verify that the source code is valid.
Of course, I could be wrong and the GPL v3 can be used on such hardware platforms.
Could you show me where it plainly states that the GPL v3 is not allowed for projects hosted on CodePlex?
From the Codeplex use agreement when you sign up to create a new project:
You must select one of the listed licenses to govern your Project ("Project License"). The license You select (the "Project License") will appear in the license text box of your Project...in the event another license, or other terms or conditions, appear on, in or are otherwise referenced in your project, you agree that the Project License will control your Project.
You don't get to see the list of acceptable licenses until after you sign up for a project, but when you do, the list is as follows:
So you do agree that you are wrong. In the use agreement they do not expressly say that you cannot release your code under the GPL v3. I can even prove that they do allow projects under the GPL v3, where you have only proved yourself wrong.
Go ahead and search for GNU GPL on CodePlex. Or better yet search for restarts, Inter.NET, or openLabel while you are proving yourself wrong.
The OSI definition of open source is more than having the source made available for viewing. Please keep it straight.
Open Source must conform to the Open Source Definition [opensource.org], which lists ten points. Free Software must respect the Four Freedoms [gnu.org] that the FSF enumerated.
Who says?
The FSF? And who elected them to be the open source police?
They're just an organization that's trying to force their beliefs and definitions on others. And there are a few things that I disagree with them on and I'll be damned if they're going to force their values on me. I even avoid their stuff so as to distance myself from them.
No one really has to follow it. But it is an excepted industry standard. If it were not people would not care if their license was OSI Approved. You can release a Open Source license that is not approved by the OSI and guess what no one would lift an eyebrow. There are Open source licenses that are not approved by OSI. And guess what? They still call themselves "Open Source".
...as long as it's black. There are a few licenses that you can't have on Codeplex (like GPLv3, for instance, although GPLv2 is allowed).
Also:
Could you show me where it plainly states that the GPL v3 is not allowed for projects hosted on CodePlex? Last I checked there were projects that were licensed under the GPL versions 2 - 3.
'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?)
It's not trademarked, but they did define it.
You are correct "open source" is not a trademark but is suppose to be a standard. If you check out the history of the OSI, you wil find that the OSD is intended to define a standard by which to judge a projects openness.
This is why using the GPLv3 is forbidden in Codeplex.
You, my friend, are incorrect. There is a difference in unsupported and forbidden, as proven by these: Inter.Net, restarts, openLabels. If GPL v3 were forbidden then these would not be hosted on the site at all. Of course, I know that there will probably be some counter-argument about they had to use some ad-hoc method to show the license. However, these projects' preferred license is hidden because I just searched for GNU GPL and up they popped. Even your source gives no conclusive evidence that CodePlex does not allow GPL v3 projects. His link points to a request to reinstate custom licenses on CodePlex. The blogger goes as far to use the term "so it seems".
Also there is no requirement that a project hosted on CodePlex has to be for Windows. So where did you get you information?
Don't get me wrong you are free to hate Microsoft, and hate on Microsoft, but please keep it to the facts please.
I agree. The way I see it Microsoft is actually promoting competition. The real battle isn't Java vs C# but JVM vs CLR. One of the things that is interesting is the fact that the flexibility of CIL and the CLR has allowed not only the native OO languages to be developed but also functional and dynamic languages. The JVM has similar capabilities but some things like tail recursion optimization are not as good. But because of the competition I suspect that the JVM team will not surpass what MS has as they already do in certain aspects.
I have to admit pretty color do have a certain draw for me. Although I would have thought that the graph would've been a little less lopsided.
I think the word "may" and the indefinite article "a" was used in my previous post. However, that's doesn't matter. Here is another reason for MS picking jQuery: http://www.google.com/trends?q=jquery%2C+mootools%2C+yahoo+ui%2C+dojo+(toolkit%7Cjavascript%7Clibrary%7Cframework)%2C+prototype+(toolkit%7Cjavascript%7Clibrary%7Cframework)&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=4
This may provide a reason why the chose jQuery over prototype: http://blog.creonfx.com/javascript/dojo-vs-jquery-vs-mootools-vs-prototype-performance-comparison
Both you and the post you qouted are incorrect. The quoted post is incorrect because any application that excepts input from the keyboard has an infinite data structure in it. Streams, stacks and queues are infinite data structures. A lot of games rely on linked list which is another infinite data structure. If you look at most if not all the "mainstream" languages they do support infinite data structures. Let me give you a list. The C++ STL contains definitions for vectors, stacks, queues, and deques. The BCL of the .Net Library supports stacks, list, and sequences, and streams.
Now the real pitfall of Haskell is that it shoves functional programming down your throat when you use it. I know what you're thinking,"So does Java,and C#." But OOP is funny in that it allows a lot to go on under the hood. You can program functionally, or imperatively. That is why such laguages as Scala, F#, and OCaml are able to exist along side Java, C#, and C++.
Microsoft does have an important place in computing history but it isn't the hardware game. Microsoft's best and arguably worst contribution to history was Windows as a programming platform on the PC. If not for Windows, software would still be very hardware specific. Both Apple and IBM wanted to lock consumers into using their hardware.(Apple is still doing it) But Microsoft came along and provided non-Big Blue PC compatible hardware vendors a basic API to write to. And since without any specific hardware ties, it was easier to get behind Windows than OS/2, or MacOS. Microsoft's good legacy is the popularization of common APIs for GUIs for the common man. X was around but tied to Unix which was still thought of as server only OS. Some of you weren't around during the pre-Windows days. It wasn't fun. I was around for the transition. I remember software coming with hardware drivers designed to make the hardware work in a reasonably consistant way.
The "hijacking part is /. sensationalism to get more reads and to promote the populatopn of the why hate Micorsoft mentality. IF the OP did not have this motive in mind, that person would have titled the summary something more appropriate like "Are Open Source licenses getting too confusing?". However, because the OP knew that most people on here would like to express why they hate Microsoft, s/he decided to focus more on one example given in the article than the actual content.
I find it funny how somany of the articles about Linux, Free Software, etc. are about MS. It is almost like the free software community has a FUD campaign against MS. Let revise that the zealots are doing as much.
Of course, if anyone reads this I'll probably get labelled some kind of MS affiliate. Do you know why? It will be more zealot FUD to discredit my opinion and logic.
Funny isn't it how an article that had nothing to do with MS except passivve reference to its OSI-Approved licenses and their unapproved derivatives transformed into an article about MS trying to hijack the open source, oh wait, FOSS community.
Wow you actually got the same meaning that I got from this article. The OP just focused on the example that was given in the article. The actually subject of the article was that open source licensing has gotten really crowded. It was talking about having to carefully inspect the licenses. But because the author used a MS license as a reference /.er went into attack M$ mode. I wonder how many saw that the OSI had actually approved the Ms-PL and Ms-RL.
I understand that there is founded concerns about the dealings of big corporations, but not everything is requires a secret decoder ring.
That sounds about like RMS and FSF. The FSF claims to promote free software but they promote only GNU Free Software. So basically I really don't think that they care too much about the open source community just the GNU community. So, Mr Griswold seems to have hit the nail on the head. The real question is what happens if the poster child for the FSF is not GPLv3.
Some people need to realize that the Free Software Foundation did not create open source software. Nor do they control it.
I'm sorry but it seems you are having config issues with FF. I am able to use hotmail just fine from Firefox 2.0. Also how are you going to blame MS for something that Cisco did? Oh well.