The FSF probably have other ethical considerations than just promoting free software.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
While there are many aspects of the American society I admire, the fact that it as the only nation in the world feeds more lawyers than programmers is not one of them.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
If you select the "Classic" theme, Mozilla will actually use the native theme engine to draw the skin, for platforms that have a native theme engine. I believe this includes at least XP, perhaps also some versions of Gnome.
Any XP users out there who can tell how well this works?
Just about all new large structures get some opposition from locals, who believe their view will be ruined. And the modern wind mills are huge. This has nothing to do with the traditional environmental groups, it is more a "not in my back yard" thing.
There have been one case in Denmark where a (rather moderate) environmental organization protested, in that case the park was proposed in a protected wildlife area. In general, the environmental organization support wind power, but it is not clear how much more than the current 15% can be derived from that source, both for technical reasons (we need energy when the wind doesn't blow too), and because of the increasing impact on landscape.
The 50% mentioned in the Auken sounds unrealistic.
The report was from Sven Auken, a leading member of the social democrats, and the primary hate figure for the then opposition, now current government.
The new right wing government have basically stopped or severely reduced funding for all environmental programs, and the current "wisdom" is that the emphasis on wind power was a mistake, because it (despite Denmarks 50% markedshare of the world production of wind mills) hasn't been short term profitable.
The new government appointed Bjørn Lomborg as head for the only new environmental institution.
I don't want the camera to send the picture to a nearby computer, but to my cell phone. The cell phone should then upload it to my computer at home. Then the 10 meter range would be plenty, and I would have a digital camera with essentially unlimited memory. As well as a reason to invest in an UTMS connection for my cell phone.
Some of my best work is done long after 8 (or 15) hours of work. But that is because the task is so fun and chalenging that I can't stop. Unfortunately, this happens with decreasing frequency as I grow older.
If I felt forced to work for long hours, it would seriously damage both code quality and productivity.
The corporate users want a "known name" to buy their desktop OS from, and they already buy their server software from Red Hat. Their is no similar source for Debian.
They might have bought Debian from Corel, but Corel dropped out before Microsoft created a demand by changing their license.
they also need to be available with no license restrictions, and no requirement for an NDA. This is, in fact, much more important than "free of charge".
Microsoft have already used the "free of charge" loophole to publish some of their API's "free of charge", but with a NDA that forbids you to use them in GPL'ed code (not mentioning Samba with a word).
So it is important to stress that the API's and ABI's should be both public and usable by everyone with no restrictions.
it is actually nice to see how a person despite a lack of understanding of the GPL and general muddy thinking have come to apreciate it, simply by observing its effects.
Apparently we can win over people who don't think like a programmer, by the simple fact: It works.
Perl is the scripting language "to beat", so like C++, it is often the target for insulting comments and unfair comparisons by advocates of other languages. Usually from fanboys who can be dismissed, but surprisingly often from intelligent and educated people who ought to know better.
You, however, never seem to enter such discussions, much less answer in anger. How do you manage that? Doesn't it hurt? Or is it your Christian faith that gives you strength?
It is about whether it is sometimes a good idea to depend on a single vendor for support and upgrades not.
If you don't think that is a good idea, you should make it a policy to require a free software license for the software you purchace. This is true no matter whether you are an individual, a corporation, or a government.
However, the larger you are, the more likely it is that vendor independence for support and upgrades will benefit you, as alarge customer is more likely to be able to find a new vendor.
I don't think each individual office have the means to understand the long time consequences of the legal restrictions for a given license restriction. Mostly, they want something that solves the local problem *now*. Also, acting as a whole the government has a lot more clout in negotiating license terms than any individual office.
It is about license choice, and ultimately whether the government should be able to require licenses that allow them to switch vendor.
Do you think that, in the long run, it is a good idea for a government to become dependent on software that you can only be supported and upgraded by a single vendor?
Or do you believe that, in the long run, the government is better of with software where it can choose the best supplier of support and upgrades, and switch supplier if the old one doesn't do a good job, or raises prices unresonably?
If you believe the answer to the later question is "yes", you should support policies (or "laws") that require such licenses.
Like 99.83% of all professionel programmers, I sell "my programming services", not the software I write. I.e. someone with a software need pay me to implement a solution. I get paid for my work, my employer get his problem solved, and as a side effect, software is created. I and my employer distribute the software freely in the hope someone will improve it, thus giving both of us additional features for free.
It would make perfectly sense for a government to try to get the same benefits as my employer does.
So, should government organizations not be allowed to make *any* policies of what licenses they will accept?
Or is it just the requirement to be able to switch vendor for support and development (which is what an "open source" requirement really means) that should not be allowed as a policy?
What "most people" are doing is irrelevant.
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 2
What matter is what the people paying for the GDB development are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, are you using a Qt port of Mozilla?
or do you mean XUL?
Since the FSF always negotiate before suing, the issue of being forced to pay damages aren't that relevant. The risks are:
1) It may disrupt the distribution, and
2) the pr loss / embarrasesment of being caught in a copyright violation.
I suspect either of these are more important than damages, even when violating the copyright of proprietary softwere owned by sue-happy companies.
The FSF probably have other ethical considerations than just promoting free software.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
While there are many aspects of the American society I admire, the fact that it as the only nation in the world feeds more lawyers than programmers is not one of them.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
If you select the "Classic" theme, Mozilla will actually use the native theme engine to draw the skin, for platforms that have a native theme engine. I believe this includes at least XP, perhaps also some versions of Gnome.
Any XP users out there who can tell how well this works?
The GNU version of the classic hello world program actually contains a mail reader.
See gcc news.
Are you a bunch of wonder-kids, or do people really graduate that young in the US?
It is possible, but rare that anyone receive a master degree before 25 here.
Just about all new large structures get some opposition from locals, who believe their view will be ruined. And the modern wind mills are huge. This has nothing to do with the traditional environmental groups, it is more a "not in my back yard" thing.
There have been one case in Denmark where a (rather moderate) environmental organization protested, in that case the park was proposed in a protected wildlife area. In general, the environmental organization support wind power, but it is not clear how much more than the current 15% can be derived from that source, both for technical reasons (we need energy when the wind doesn't blow too), and because of the increasing impact on landscape.
The 50% mentioned in the Auken sounds unrealistic.
The report was from Sven Auken, a leading member of the social democrats, and the primary hate figure for the then opposition, now current government.
The new right wing government have basically stopped or severely reduced funding for all environmental programs, and the current "wisdom" is that the emphasis on wind power was a mistake, because it (despite Denmarks 50% markedshare of the world production of wind mills) hasn't been short term profitable.
The new government appointed Bjørn Lomborg as head for the only new environmental institution.
I don't want the camera to send the picture to a nearby computer, but to my cell phone. The cell phone should then upload it to my computer at home. Then the 10 meter range would be plenty, and I would have a digital camera with essentially unlimited memory. As well as a reason to invest in an UTMS connection for my cell phone.
Some of my best work is done long after 8 (or 15) hours of work. But that is because the task is so fun and chalenging that I can't stop. Unfortunately, this happens with decreasing frequency as I grow older.
If I felt forced to work for long hours, it would seriously damage both code quality and productivity.
The corporate users want a "known name" to buy their desktop OS from, and they already buy their server software from Red Hat. Their is no similar source for Debian.
They might have bought Debian from Corel, but Corel dropped out before Microsoft created a demand by changing their license.
the article mentions that it is unhappyness with the new MS licensing that prompt companies to "evaluate alternatives".
So if Red Hat against odds is successful in selling the desktop, Microsoft only have themselves to thanks for losing their monopoly.
they also need to be available with no license restrictions, and no requirement for an NDA. This is, in fact, much more important than "free of charge".
Microsoft have already used the "free of charge" loophole to publish some of their API's "free of charge", but with a NDA that forbids you to use them in GPL'ed code (not mentioning Samba with a word).
So it is important to stress that the API's and ABI's should be both public and usable by everyone with no restrictions.
it is actually nice to see how a person despite a lack of understanding of the GPL and general muddy thinking have come to apreciate it, simply by observing its effects.
Apparently we can win over people who don't think like a programmer, by the simple fact: It works.
Perl is the scripting language "to beat", so like C++, it is often the target for insulting comments and unfair comparisons by advocates of other languages. Usually from fanboys who can be dismissed, but surprisingly often from intelligent and educated people who ought to know better.
You, however, never seem to enter such discussions, much less answer in anger. How do you manage that? Doesn't it hurt? Or is it your Christian faith that gives you strength?
It is a (actually two) new assignment contracts.
It is about whether it is sometimes a good idea to depend on a single vendor for support and upgrades not.
If you don't think that is a good idea, you should make it a policy to require a free software license for the software you purchace. This is true no matter whether you are an individual, a corporation, or a government.
However, the larger you are, the more likely it is that vendor independence for support and upgrades will benefit you, as alarge customer is more likely to be able to find a new vendor.
I don't think each individual office have the means to understand the long time consequences of the legal restrictions for a given license restriction. Mostly, they want something that solves the local problem *now*. Also, acting as a whole the government has a lot more clout in negotiating license terms than any individual office.
It is about license choice, and ultimately whether the government should be able to require licenses that allow them to switch vendor.
Do you think that, in the long run, it is a good idea for a government to become dependent on software that you can only be supported and upgraded by a single vendor?
Or do you believe that, in the long run, the government is better of with software where it can choose the best supplier of support and upgrades, and switch supplier if the old one doesn't do a good job, or raises prices unresonably?
If you believe the answer to the later question is "yes", you should support policies (or "laws") that require such licenses.
Like 99.83% of all professionel programmers, I sell "my programming services", not the software I write. I.e. someone with a software need pay me to implement a solution. I get paid for my work, my employer get his problem solved, and as a side effect, software is created. I and my employer distribute the software freely in the hope someone will improve it, thus giving both of us additional features for free.
It would make perfectly sense for a government to try to get the same benefits as my employer does.
So, should government organizations not be allowed to make *any* policies of what licenses they will accept?
Or is it just the requirement to be able to switch vendor for support and development (which is what an "open source" requirement really means) that should not be allowed as a policy?
What matter is what the people paying for the GDB development are doing.