Anyway, I have some questions maybe someone here can answer.
Why hasn't everyone switched to PNG if it's free? Why pay for these licenses? Does GIF have advantages that PNG doesn't that makes it an option worth considering despite the costs? Are we just being witnesses of another marketing influenced stupid decision by IT managers or whoever is responsible for paying these licenses to Unisys?
And what about the current state of PNG? How's browser support? Graphics apps support?
Okay... let's have a little fun with that quote, shall we?
Why hasn't everyone switched to Linux if it's free? Why pay for these licenses? Does Windows have advantages that Linux doesn't that makes it an option worth considering despite the costs? Are we just being witnesses of another marketing influenced stupid decision by IT managers or whoever is responsible for paying these licenses to Microsoft?
And what about the current state of Linux? How's browser support? Graphics apps support?
~~~~~~~ Okay, we've had enough fun...
As for PNG browser support, Netscape's supported the format since late 4.x at least, and in the graphics apps arena, both Photoshop and the GIMP support PNG images.
The author of the article seems to think that somehow, libertarianism and loathing of corporations are inherently at odds with one another.
But it just ain't so. Corporations are not people, despite the fact that the brain-dead fuckheads at the Supreme Court decided otherwise in 1885 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, IIRC).
The unrestricted growth of "free enterprise" can represent a greater threat to personal liberties than even the heavy hand of government.
What really irks me is when government and corporations work together to crush liberty. Under the same bullshit pretext that corporations are "persons" and that their "rights" are being violated.
As the speakers in the article mention, government is the only thing keeping corporations from becoming completely tyrannical.
If anything, corporations are even more slimy than governments, because while most governments are at least theoretically driven by the desire to make people's lives better, corporations are, by their very design, driven by an endless, insatiable hunger for profits.
What the speakers in the article are saying is that technology by itself cannot guarantee privacy, so strong laws to protect personal privacy are needed as an additional safeguard.
Think about it: when you send an encrypted message, do you encrypt it with an algorithm or key length stronger than what you suspect can be broken now, or do you encrypt it stronger than you think can be broken with the technology available 20 years from now? How about fifty?
Sooner or later, someone who intercepts your scrambled message today will be able to read it. Wouldn't it be nice to have strong legal protections ensuring that nobody invades your privacy?
What if these laws could be applied to governmental agencies, as well? I mean, how long is it until they have Really Big quantum computers, and can reconstruct your private key by peering into parallel universes?
No matter what the technology, along will come a bigger, meaner technology to crush it.
So, we do need regulations to protect our privacy as well. And that is not at odds with libertarianism, since no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.
And even though it is a "passive" right, privacy is still a right.
A) Is it kosher to mix GPLed software with softare under, say... the NetHack Public License?
C'mon, man; when can I write that Quake frontend to NetHack?
(Memo to self: Shoot the bastard who ports my Quake frontend of NetHack to Textmode Quake...)
B) If a free software hacker offered to buy you a drink, would you:
Accept his offer as is, or
Insist on making a toast, since free speech is just as important as free beer?
C) Which closed-source software product do you consider to be the least loathsome? (Erm... you may have to base this on what you've heard about them;-)
D) As an admitted JargonPhile, I must ask, what do you think of Eric Raymond's version of the Jargon File? Is it an improvement? Worse? A historical document? Should classic hacker jargon be thus preserved in current usage, or should new generations of hackers create new jargon?
E) What is the most important piece of advice you could give to someone who's just recently embarked on the quest to write free software?
of course. but they can not sue you for using your own code.
True, but, they can take advantage of your generosity, then backstab you when you try to use their version of your program. At least with LGPL'ed software, you can clearly and distinctly separate their proprietary program from the part which is freely available to the rest of the world.
Thus, you've allowed them to make proprietary programs, but any modifications to your code remain available for you to incorporate into your program in the future.
no, it is not!!! it is under their licence, but not their copyright. what you wrote remains yours. the BSD license gives everyone the rights to use your code as they see fit, but it does not give them the copyright to your code.
A software license is unenforceable without a copyright to back it up. Any modifications they make are derivative work, and fall under their copyright. (No, IANAL and never will be.)
Sure it does! We use it for most of the libraries on Linux, for gosh sake! It's because we explicitly want people to be able to create proprietary applications on their Linux systems.
Was anybody arguing with that?
Nope. Although there was a time that I would have argued against that.
What made me change my mind was a little company called Loki Games. Their products (a) make Linux more fun to play games on, and (b) increase the adoption rate of Linux among end-users. This in and of itself is a boon to the open source movement.
Now, what enamored me with the LGPL was something related, the Simple Directmedia Layer ( SDL ), by Sam Latinga, who just so happens to be the lead programmer at Loki Games.
But what I'm suggesting in the earlier post is to use the LGPL not as a Library GPL, but as a Lesser GPL, and in fact release actual non-library programs under its terms. It seems to me to be the ideal compromise between BSD-style licenses and a full GNU copyleft.
"[They] wouldn't be able to sue you because it's your original work. You can only patent original work. So not only would they spoil their patent but you could counter sue them for misapropiation of your work or plagiarism. That's why I like BSD licences. Though for the most part LGPL is de definitive patent for libraries. About other work, well GPL is good enough. At least that's what I think."
Key words in your post: "At least, that's what I think".
First, we're not dealing with "patents", we're dealing with copyright.
Second, BSD-style licenses allow others to take your code and re-release it under their own licenses, including proprietary ones, or (even worse) a license that allows distribution of the source, but not granting the freedom to release your modifications. The new work is under their copyright, which means that theycan sue you for using what was originally your work!
Before you release your software under any terms, carefully review the license you choose, and fully understand itbefore you shoot yourself in the foot.
Nobody's forcing anybody to use the SOFTWARE in the first place. People complaining about the coercive nature of the GPL are literally saying that although they got something for free, that's simply not good enough. Somehow, I can muster remarkably little sympathy with this point of view.
You've got a point, but you can be put in a situation where you've got to use a particular piece of software due to your job, etc. Ubiquity of any particular type of software means that somebody who can't stand it will have to use it.
Or perhaps you've forgotten why so many of us loathe the Beast.
Ultimately, and I suppose this might answer the original story's poster's question, if I really wanted to mingle someone else's GPL'ed code into my proprietary software, I'd build a DLL under the LGPL which interfaces with both programs. A sort of "glue", if you will.
The nice thing about that is, even though I'm (hypothetically!!) obscuring the code of the proprietary half of my program, I've still got to release the modifications to the original GPL'ed work (if I expect anyone else to be able to successfully run my program), and I've got to release the source to my LGPL'ed "glue" library, thereby defining a convenient API for anyone who wants to write a free replacement for my program.
Net result: my boss is happy for the moment (he's just got a proprietary program out the door for a fraction of the development time), I'm happy (I'd've gotten a raise for my deviously ingenious scheme), and the rest of the world is happy (they're laughing because in 6 months, they'll have created a free replacement for my program, rendering it obsolete. Hopefully, by that time I'd be working somewhere else!).
Ultimately, in my hypothetical scenario, I would have, IMO, helped rather than hindered the open source movement, by increasing the user base of a quality GPL'ed program, creating an open API for linking that program with others, and leaving the door wiiide open for others to replace my program with a free alternative. And tricked my employer into releasing an open API for their proprietary program.
Granted, in this hypothetical scenario, I would have helped more if I just released my program under the GPL, but my hypothetical employer might be dead against that. (And in some states, any related work you do off the job can become the property of your employer. AFAIK, that's illegal here in California, but not everyone is that lucky.)
A DLL would be ok to link with proprietary software if it's under the LGPL, but not the GPL.
Remember that Linux has shared libraries too (.so == "shared objects", or something like that).
Now, the LGPL lets your proprietary software call the functions in an LGPL'ed library, as long as it's dynamically linked. The GPL does not put up with that sort of thing.
If I'm not mistaken, the proper term for "shared objects" is "dynamically linked libraries". Regardless of the platform, the idea is the same.
(As for "a library statically linked into the executable that just happens to be loaded from a separate file"... umm... that sounds a lot like dynamic linkage to me.)
(BE WARNED: The following post is likely to piss off somebody out there. I'm not here to start a holy war or anything, just to make discussion. So think for a few seconds before impulsively launching your barrage of flames.:)
The LGPL does have its uses, despite RMS' deprecation of it.
For example, if I wanted to release my software under a less restrictive license than the GPL, I'd be tempted to use the BSD license at first, but if someone incorporates that into a proprietary license, (especially those nasty "source available" licenses that claim to be open source but aren't), then they can sue me for using something derived from my code!
If I use the LGPL, then any portion of the code that was originally mine stays available for me to use with whatever modifications others add, but it's still usable by anyone, even those whose bosses insist that they write (gasp!) proprietary software.
If later on, I decide that I want to spread free software "virulently", I can still place my LGPL'ed software under the GPL (the LGPL explicitly lets you do that), just as I could if I had placed it under the BSD license.
To me, that's what free software should be about, a way to facilitate the free sharing and communal improvement of your code, not forcing others to do the same if they don't want to.
IMHO, ESR really hit the nail on the head when he identified the "Bazaar" style of development popularized by Linux. Open source software can compete on its own merit, without resorting to a Borg-like assimilation of all the world's software.
The license in the "open source" grant you only the right to use it for non commercial purpose.
If you want to use the source commercially, you have to purchase a commercial license.
Now, by "commercial", do you mean proprietary or for any "commercial" purpose?
i.e., in your licensing scheme, is a special dispensation purchased by those who want to include it in proprietary software? (Like the way Troll Tech's QPL works)
Or, do you mean for all "commercial" purposes, such as reselling, or packaging and selling your own distributions? (In which case, I'd be extremely reluctant to call that licensing scheme "open source".)
For the longest time, I've been excrucatingly paranoid online. Not that I've got too much to hide, but I've always had to rationalize the knowledge that countless third parties could monitor all of my electronic communications with the thought that I'm probably not that important to them, so I'll be lost in the noise. You know, security through obscurity and all that rot.
Recently, I started a small SourceForge project (erm... my project's not much yet, I'll talk about it more later...), and to administer the project, I finally had to get around to downloading OpenSSH ( the Linux Port ), and felt a strange feeling as I watched it compile... the thrill of the would-be forbidden... that which the Powers-That-Be fought tooth and nail to supress.
Finally, after logging into SourceForge with SSH, a profound realization hit me: no third party can intercept my communications. Even if they did, it'd all be gobbledlygook to them. I laughed. True privacy, the most wonderful feeling in the (online) world...
After that, I can't wait until strong encryption becomes ubiquitously integrated into all communications software, (and all new Linux distributions!;-).
The day when every person can communicate freely, without being spied upon from above, or snooped on from below, will be the greatest day in a very long time.
And don't give me that crap about "criminals" using it to coordinate terrorism. Any serious organized criminal or terror group in all probability has strong crypto, as well as countless other safeguards. Although, I'm not an authority on the subject. (Like Nixon, IANAC;-)
Actually, the USA tried to do that with Viêt-Nàm 35 years ago...
The USA is a nation, not an individual. There are precendents going back to the beginning of recorded history implicitly granting nations the "right" to act like violent, psychotic children, prey on the weak, and attack others just to save face. Not that this is a good thing, but that's just how it is. --
/* If I see one more comment posted in * witty yet obnoxiously cute source code... */
if (I.see("Comment written in witty yet obnoxiously cute source code") && obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I) > last_obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I)) {
//...then I'll throw up
I.enqueue_action(BARF); }
God->bless(America);
/* * Heh heh heh... * Actually, I think those posts are kinda funny;) * God->bless(Slashdot); */ --
I can goto Amazon.com (if we're not boycotting them) and order books on how to build and atomic bomb or emp gun or assault rifle, how to break into computers and wreak havoc, and many other worse things I'm sure.... all of these have been very explicitly labelled FREE SPEECH. Countless trials uphold this statement... And surely "malicious" source code is not worse than any of these in its worst form.
(Note: IANAL)
This may be so, but there's a difference between expression of an idea, and the implementation of that idea.
You can write books about how to make bombs, kill people, or turn small nations into smoking holes in the ground, but you can't actually do those things!
Likewise, you can send all your friends the source code for your latest Internet worm, but if they compile and run it, they've crossed the line between communicating an idea and actually carrying it out.
That's where the fuzzy gray area of "speech with functional significance" comes in... --
Of course, good luck to the U.S. government if they ever want to break up Sony...
I Am Not A Trade Regulator, but since Sony's a Japanese company, it'd seem like a U.S. antitrust breakup of the company would raise hell with the WTO, since, unlike Microsoft, they'd be saying "Break up, or don't do business in our country", which is getting harder and harder to do.
So what we've really entered is the age of the clashing titans. Juggernaut economic interests duking it out for control of the world's consumer markets. We, the little people, just sit on the sidelines, rooting for the lesser evil, until they cease to be the underdog.
(Already I've mentioned several large, evil, economic monstrousities in this post, namely Sony, Microsoft, the U.S. Government, the WTO, Hell, and the world's consumer markets...;-)
Well, just a thought... slosh it around in your brain for a while with a spinal fluid chaser and it just might start making sense... --
Slashdot Mirror
Okay... let's have a little fun with that quote, shall we?
Why hasn't everyone switched to Linux if it's free? Why pay for these licenses? Does Windows have advantages that Linux doesn't that makes it an option worth considering despite the costs? Are we just being witnesses of another marketing influenced stupid decision by IT managers or whoever is responsible for paying these licenses to Microsoft?
And what about the current state of Linux? How's browser support? Graphics apps support?
~~~~~~~
Okay, we've had enough fun...
As for PNG browser support, Netscape's supported the format since late 4.x at least, and in the graphics apps arena, both Photoshop and the GIMP support PNG images.
But it just ain't so. Corporations are not people, despite the fact that the brain-dead fuckheads at the Supreme Court decided otherwise in 1885 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, IIRC).
The unrestricted growth of "free enterprise" can represent a greater threat to personal liberties than even the heavy hand of government.
What really irks me is when government and corporations work together to crush liberty. Under the same bullshit pretext that corporations are "persons" and that their "rights" are being violated.
As the speakers in the article mention, government is the only thing keeping corporations from becoming completely tyrannical.
If anything, corporations are even more slimy than governments, because while most governments are at least theoretically driven by the desire to make people's lives better, corporations are, by their very design, driven by an endless, insatiable hunger for profits.
What the speakers in the article are saying is that technology by itself cannot guarantee privacy, so strong laws to protect personal privacy are needed as an additional safeguard.
Think about it: when you send an encrypted message, do you encrypt it with an algorithm or key length stronger than what you suspect can be broken now, or do you encrypt it stronger than you think can be broken with the technology available 20 years from now? How about fifty?
Sooner or later, someone who intercepts your scrambled message today will be able to read it. Wouldn't it be nice to have strong legal protections ensuring that nobody invades your privacy?
What if these laws could be applied to governmental agencies, as well? I mean, how long is it until they have Really Big quantum computers, and can reconstruct your private key by peering into parallel universes?
No matter what the technology, along will come a bigger, meaner technology to crush it.
So, we do need regulations to protect our privacy as well. And that is not at odds with libertarianism, since no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.
And even though it is a "passive" right, privacy is still a right.
(But thou shalt! How darest thou ignoreth My most Holy Suggestion? ;-)
C'mon, man; when can I write that Quake frontend to NetHack?
(Memo to self: Shoot the bastard who ports my Quake frontend of NetHack to Textmode Quake...)
B) If a free software hacker offered to buy you a drink, would you:
C) Which closed-source software product do you consider to be the least loathsome? (Erm... you may have to base this on what you've heard about them ;-)
D) As an admitted JargonPhile, I must ask, what do you think of Eric Raymond's version of the Jargon File? Is it an improvement? Worse? A historical document? Should classic hacker jargon be thus preserved in current usage, or should new generations of hackers create new jargon?
E) What is the most important piece of advice you could give to someone who's just recently embarked on the quest to write free software?
A software license is unenforceable without a copyright to back it up. Any modifications they make are derivative work, and fall under their copyright. (No, IANAL and never will be.)
Finally, a game system that lets you get some real work done!
Video games... promoting violence??? What kinda crack is the Japanese government smoking?!
Nope. Although there was a time that I would have argued against that.
What made me change my mind was a little company called Loki Games. Their products (a) make Linux more fun to play games on, and (b) increase the adoption rate of Linux among end-users. This in and of itself is a boon to the open source movement.
Now, what enamored me with the LGPL was something related, the Simple Directmedia Layer ( SDL ), by Sam Latinga, who just so happens to be the lead programmer at Loki Games.
But what I'm suggesting in the earlier post is to use the LGPL not as a Library GPL, but as a Lesser GPL, and in fact release actual non-library programs under its terms. It seems to me to be the ideal compromise between BSD-style licenses and a full GNU copyleft.
I mean, it is about freedom, isn't it?
Key words in your post: "At least, that's what I think".
First, we're not dealing with "patents", we're dealing with copyright.
Second, BSD-style licenses allow others to take your code and re-release it under their own licenses, including proprietary ones, or (even worse) a license that allows distribution of the source, but not granting the freedom to release your modifications. The new work is under their copyright, which means that they can sue you for using what was originally your work!
Before you release your software under any terms, carefully review the license you choose, and fully understand it before you shoot yourself in the foot.
You've got a point, but you can be put in a situation where you've got to use a particular piece of software due to your job, etc. Ubiquity of any particular type of software means that somebody who can't stand it will have to use it.
Or perhaps you've forgotten why so many of us loathe the Beast.
Ultimately, and I suppose this might answer the original story's poster's question, if I really wanted to mingle someone else's GPL'ed code into my proprietary software, I'd build a DLL under the LGPL which interfaces with both programs. A sort of "glue", if you will.
The nice thing about that is, even though I'm (hypothetically!!) obscuring the code of the proprietary half of my program, I've still got to release the modifications to the original GPL'ed work (if I expect anyone else to be able to successfully run my program), and I've got to release the source to my LGPL'ed "glue" library, thereby defining a convenient API for anyone who wants to write a free replacement for my program.
Net result: my boss is happy for the moment (he's just got a proprietary program out the door for a fraction of the development time), I'm happy (I'd've gotten a raise for my deviously ingenious scheme), and the rest of the world is happy (they're laughing because in 6 months, they'll have created a free replacement for my program, rendering it obsolete. Hopefully, by that time I'd be working somewhere else!).
Ultimately, in my hypothetical scenario, I would have, IMO, helped rather than hindered the open source movement, by increasing the user base of a quality GPL'ed program, creating an open API for linking that program with others, and leaving the door wiiide open for others to replace my program with a free alternative. And tricked my employer into releasing an open API for their proprietary program.
Granted, in this hypothetical scenario, I would have helped more if I just released my program under the GPL, but my hypothetical employer might be dead against that. (And in some states, any related work you do off the job can become the property of your employer. AFAIK, that's illegal here in California, but not everyone is that lucky.)
Sincerely,
The Management
Remember that Linux has shared libraries too ( .so == "shared objects", or something like that).
Now, the LGPL lets your proprietary software call the functions in an LGPL'ed library, as long as it's dynamically linked. The GPL does not put up with that sort of thing.
If I'm not mistaken, the proper term for "shared objects" is "dynamically linked libraries". Regardless of the platform, the idea is the same.
(As for "a library statically linked into the executable that just happens to be loaded from a separate file"... umm... that sounds a lot like dynamic linkage to me.)
The LGPL does have its uses, despite RMS' deprecation of it.
For example, if I wanted to release my software under a less restrictive license than the GPL, I'd be tempted to use the BSD license at first, but if someone incorporates that into a proprietary license, (especially those nasty "source available" licenses that claim to be open source but aren't), then they can sue me for using something derived from my code!
If I use the LGPL, then any portion of the code that was originally mine stays available for me to use with whatever modifications others add, but it's still usable by anyone, even those whose bosses insist that they write (gasp!) proprietary software.
If later on, I decide that I want to spread free software "virulently", I can still place my LGPL'ed software under the GPL (the LGPL explicitly lets you do that), just as I could if I had placed it under the BSD license.
To me, that's what free software should be about, a way to facilitate the free sharing and communal improvement of your code, not forcing others to do the same if they don't want to.
IMHO, ESR really hit the nail on the head when he identified the "Bazaar" style of development popularized by Linux. Open source software can compete on its own merit, without resorting to a Borg-like assimilation of all the world's software.
Just watch as your overclocked Celeron 2's melt as they try to uniquely identify themselves 901,000,000 times per second! ;-)
Now, by "commercial", do you mean proprietary or for any "commercial" purpose?
i.e., in your licensing scheme, is a special dispensation purchased by those who want to include it in proprietary software? (Like the way Troll Tech's QPL works)
Or, do you mean for all "commercial" purposes, such as reselling, or packaging and selling your own distributions? (In which case, I'd be extremely reluctant to call that licensing scheme "open source".)
That's the dreaded "Porn Site Hydra"... chopping off its heads won't work. Attack the body instead...
Recently, I started a small SourceForge project (erm... my project's not much yet, I'll talk about it more later...), and to administer the project, I finally had to get around to downloading OpenSSH ( the Linux Port ), and felt a strange feeling as I watched it compile... the thrill of the would-be forbidden... that which the Powers-That-Be fought tooth and nail to supress.
Finally, after logging into SourceForge with SSH, a profound realization hit me: no third party can intercept my communications. Even if they did, it'd all be gobbledlygook to them. I laughed. True privacy, the most wonderful feeling in the (online) world...
After that, I can't wait until strong encryption becomes ubiquitously integrated into all communications software, (and all new Linux distributions! ;-).
The day when every person can communicate freely, without being spied upon from above, or snooped on from below, will be the greatest day in a very long time.
And don't give me that crap about "criminals" using it to coordinate terrorism. Any serious organized criminal or terror group in all probability has strong crypto, as well as countless other safeguards. Although, I'm not an authority on the subject. (Like Nixon, IANAC ;-)
(Hypergeek hits head on the nearest wall for using up his last moderation point 2 hours ago, then repeats for several thousand iterations...)
All in all, though, Mr. The Caveman's post is more likely a parody than a troll...
The USA is a nation, not an individual. There are precendents going back to the beginning of recorded history implicitly granting nations the "right" to act like violent, psychotic children, prey on the weak, and attack others just to save face. Not that this is a good thing, but that's just how it is.
--
/* If I see one more comment posted in
...then I'll throw up
;)
* witty yet obnoxiously cute source code...
*/
if (I.see("Comment written in witty yet obnoxiously cute source code") && obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I) > last_obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I)) {
//
I.enqueue_action(BARF);
}
God->bless(America);
/*
* Heh heh heh...
* Actually, I think those posts are kinda funny
* God->bless(Slashdot);
*/
--
(Note: IANAL)
This may be so, but there's a difference between expression of an idea, and the implementation of that idea.
You can write books about how to make bombs, kill people, or turn small nations into smoking holes in the ground, but you can't actually do those things!
Likewise, you can send all your friends the source code for your latest Internet worm, but if they compile and run it, they've crossed the line between communicating an idea and actually carrying it out.
That's where the fuzzy gray area of "speech with functional significance" comes in...
--
I Am Not A Trade Regulator, but since Sony's a Japanese company, it'd seem like a U.S. antitrust breakup of the company would raise hell with the WTO, since, unlike Microsoft, they'd be saying "Break up, or don't do business in our country", which is getting harder and harder to do.
So what we've really entered is the age of the clashing titans. Juggernaut economic interests duking it out for control of the world's consumer markets. We, the little people, just sit on the sidelines, rooting for the lesser evil, until they cease to be the underdog.
(Already I've mentioned several large, evil, economic monstrousities in this post, namely Sony, Microsoft, the U.S. Government, the WTO, Hell, and the world's consumer markets... ;-)
Well, just a thought... slosh it around in your brain for a while with a spinal fluid chaser and it just might start making sense...
--
Memo to self: use the "Preview" button.
--
But then your box exploded
Pity the poor fool
Erm... 5-7-5... that looks about right to me :-)
Does it bother anyone else that this story is right to an account of a kidnapping perpetrated by a "real-life Zombie"?
--