Sure, but the GPL fanatics, at least among the main developers, don't hate the BSD license. If they did, you'd see a lot of BSDL turned GPL projects, since the new BSDL allows that.
Most programmers don't care about "making money" directly from their software. They program to solve a problem, because they are paid for solving problems. Most of them aren't even professional programmers, but engineers, scientists, or something similar.
If they use some software that, with a small improvement, could be even more useful for solving problems, it makes sense to submit the improvement to whoever owns the software, so the improvement will be part of the next version. No matter what the license is.
Well, not really, but he uses non-copyleft free software licenses when he believe they best serve the cause of free software.
For example, the compression code from gzip was separated out in the zlib library, and made available under such a permissive license, because it was deemed more important to remove dependency on software patents (which affected the compress and gif file formats) than on non-free software.
So the license "hate" between BSDL and GPL is mostly one way only, from BSD-fanatics. If you want to be loved by everyone, go with BSDL. Even Microsoft will love you.
The whole "linguistic" discussion (free, viral, stays free, whatever) is missing the point. You shouldn't choose license from which has the best sound-bites, but from which best supports your goals. Here is a seven year old article about how to choose a free software license that should be much more useful. The specific choice of licenses may have changed, but the reasoning hasn't.
> Gates only wrote the BASIC interpreter (which almost no one used),
Hey, we are a generation of programmers who were brought up with MS BASIC. It was included in most of the 8-bit home computers, most notably the Commodore 64.
> Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?
The largest problem with the Microsoft monopoly is on the desktop OS is that they have systematically used it illegally to expand into similar status in other areas.
It is not clear that a dominating status on search will have similar power, it is a lot easier to switch search engine that to switch operating status.
Well, I'm a city person and recognize the benefit to me of paying (through taxes) for infrastructure that reaches rural areas. The more people are connected, the more services will be available. This is particularly the case for public services that must reach everyone.
Well, some of the idiots only stayed loyal as long as Bush had none-lame power. So maybe they weren't loyal idiots after all, just amoral opportunists.
> It was always clear to most of us in Europe (I was in the UK) that the WMDs were fictional
It wasn't clear to me. I think most believed Iraq to have a few leftover WMD's from before the embargo, but not enough to pose a serious threat to its neighbors.
I *really* think Hilary Clinton's should've been advised against being a female candidate We tried to explain her how bad an idea that was, but she simply refused to run as a male candidate.
I could understand that rationale if the peer reviewers were paid employees, but they aren't, at least for most journals; they're unpaid volunteers. The business model is on its way out, open access journals are taking over. There are several reasons for this:
1) Many scientist recognize open access is the right way to do science.
2) Open access journals tend to have higher impact factors. The impact factor is a measure of how important the journal is, and is mostly measured from number of citations from the journal. Open access journals gets more citations, because they are easier to find with a web search.
3) Many funding agencies have started requiring articles to be published in open access journals. Recently, the Danish equivalent to the NSF did that.
(Moreover, I don't think the screen they provide is particularly useful - in fact, I think it's even harmful because it imposes a socially constructed restriction on one's exposure to new ideas - but that's just my own opinion). If you knew how much crap was submitted, you'd value the screening.
In the case of Nature, I think most people pay to have their work in it because of the prestige of having an article published in Nature rather than the journal's audience. If they just wanted others to read it, they could find other journals to accomplish this goal. Yes, an article in Nature can basically secure your position in a University.
The whole thing is a pretty nasty scheme: the authors sometimes pay, the readers always pay, and the reviewers don't cost anything, so where is the money going? Editors. It is true that the scientific part is done by unpaid reviewers, but the part of being unpaid is that the reviewing get low priority. Which leaves lots of work for the editor. The more prestigious, the more work. You can look at the prices for submitting at PLoS, a non-profit open access publisher, to get an idea of the cost associated.
Slashdot Mirror
> Both sides have their share of fanatics.
Sure, but the GPL fanatics, at least among the main developers, don't hate the BSD license. If they did, you'd see a lot of BSDL turned GPL projects, since the new BSDL allows that.
> Wot? You make money and I can't?
Most programmers don't care about "making money" directly from their software. They program to solve a problem, because they are paid for solving problems. Most of them aren't even professional programmers, but engineers, scientists, or something similar.
If they use some software that, with a small improvement, could be even more useful for solving problems, it makes sense to submit the improvement to whoever owns the software, so the improvement will be part of the next version. No matter what the license is.
Well, not really, but he uses non-copyleft free software licenses when he believe they best serve the cause of free software.
For example, the compression code from gzip was separated out in the zlib library, and made available under such a permissive license, because it was deemed more important to remove dependency on software patents (which affected the compress and gif file formats) than on non-free software.
So the license "hate" between BSDL and GPL is mostly one way only, from BSD-fanatics. If you want to be loved by everyone, go with BSDL. Even Microsoft will love you.
The whole "linguistic" discussion (free, viral, stays free, whatever) is missing the point. You shouldn't choose license from which has the best sound-bites, but from which best supports your goals. Here is a seven year old article about how to choose a free software license that should be much more useful. The specific choice of licenses may have changed, but the reasoning hasn't.
One elderly family member with a dial-up connection.
Another elderly family member with fast connection paid through the rent, and a digital camera.
GCC is easier to remember? Ok, that really isn't an acronym (or bacronym I guess... is it?)
Used to be an acronym (GNU C Compiler), changed to a backronym (GNU Compiler Collection) as it gained support for more languages.
> Gates only wrote the BASIC interpreter (which almost no one used),
Hey, we are a generation of programmers who were brought up with MS BASIC. It was included in most of the 8-bit home computers, most notably the Commodore 64.
PS: I'm almost certain the GP was sarcastic.
> Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?
The largest problem with the Microsoft monopoly is on the desktop OS is that they have systematically used it illegally to expand into similar status in other areas.
It is not clear that a dominating status on search will have similar power, it is a lot easier to switch search engine that to switch operating status.
His auto-biography was named "I aimed for the stars". It should have been subtitled "But I hit London".
> NULL is defined as 0, no discussion.
Well, GCC defines NULL as __null, and then let __null behave exactly like 0, except giving additional warnings in some contexts.
> Sorry, but CNN is no less biased than FNC is...
Right, they are both extremist right wing propaganda outlets.
> You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband.
Well, I'm a city person and recognize the benefit to me of paying (through taxes) for infrastructure that reaches rural areas. The more people are connected, the more services will be available. This is particularly the case for public services that must reach everyone.
What the nerds in Springfield lacked, and politicians have in spades, is social intelligence.
Well, some of the idiots only stayed loyal as long as Bush had none-lame power. So maybe they weren't loyal idiots after all, just amoral opportunists.
Not really, I have written integration software for tools I have never used (not even for testing, the "other side" did all the tests).
You can be a programmer an casual user at the same time.
> It was always clear to most of us in Europe (I was in the UK) that the WMDs were fictional
It wasn't clear to me. I think most believed Iraq to have a few leftover WMD's from before the embargo, but not enough to pose a serious threat to its neighbors.
This is what happens when marketing doesn't discuss their "brilliant" plans with engineering...
1) Many scientist recognize open access is the right way to do science.
2) Open access journals tend to have higher impact factors. The impact factor is a measure of how important the journal is, and is mostly measured from number of citations from the journal. Open access journals gets more citations, because they are easier to find with a web search.
3) Many funding agencies have started requiring articles to be published in open access journals. Recently, the Danish equivalent to the NSF did that. (Moreover, I don't think the screen they provide is particularly useful - in fact, I think it's even harmful because it imposes a socially constructed restriction on one's exposure to new ideas - but that's just my own opinion). If you knew how much crap was submitted, you'd value the screening. In the case of Nature, I think most people pay to have their work in it because of the prestige of having an article published in Nature rather than the journal's audience. If they just wanted others to read it, they could find other journals to accomplish this goal. Yes, an article in Nature can basically secure your position in a University. The whole thing is a pretty nasty scheme: the authors sometimes pay, the readers always pay, and the reviewers don't cost anything, so where is the money going? Editors. It is true that the scientific part is done by unpaid reviewers, but the part of being unpaid is that the reviewing get low priority. Which leaves lots of work for the editor. The more prestigious, the more work. You can look at the prices for submitting at PLoS, a non-profit open access publisher, to get an idea of the cost associated.
Henry V .009 is basically saying that since he hasn't had any problems with Vista, all the people reporting problems must be liars or morons.
How does that qualify for insightful? It seems to be a perfect example of narrow mindedness.
I wish we were switching to something better, but as it is, we are sticking with XP.
UAC is only good thing about Vista, and you turned it off?
Poor performance, confusing UI, needless changes, and lack of compatibility with the Enterprise network are all good reasons to avoid Vista.
But the fact that MS Windows *finally* got something equivalent to sudo? Not so much.
Here are the details.
Read the other response, from the anonymous ass-hole.
Qt is owned by Nokia, which I doubt really need donations.
I would instead take a look at Troll Techs various products, and keep them in mind if you ever need some of that.