> If we start cloning things now, birds, sheep, > etc. even to fix a mistake on our part, whats > to prevent us from having made to order humans > in the future?
If we *don't* start cloning things now, what's to prevent us from having made to order humans in the future?
In any case, we can't *start* cloning humans and animals now, as we have been doing it for many years already. The big discussion you probably remember from some time ago was about cloning *adults*, not cloning in general.
Cloning is a well established technique, in particular for plants.
If it wasn't send to many people (or many copies to one person) then it is not spam.
If the people asked for it, it is not spam.
If it was send to many people who did not ask for it, it _is_ spam.
Content doesn't enter the equation.
The reason some novices think content matter, is because most spam have a very low quality content. So when thye hear "that is spam", they assume the word refers to the quality of the content, not to the fact that it was send to many people who did not ask for it.
1. I consider it less problematic that GPL'ed software might lose some restrictions than if it gained them.
2. As I wrote, the contract is quote detailed and leave very little room for change. Unfortunately, I only have paper copies of the contract. Maybe someone else can refer to an online copy.
1. There is always the choice of using the old license, so a new GPL can only remove restrictions on the old code, never create more restrictions.
2. The FSF sends a contract to everyone who donates code, which guareentees that the code will remain free. The contract is almost as detailed about this as the GPL, and leave _very_ little room for changes.
Re:Improvement over Netscape, but barely
on
Mozilla M8 Released
·
· Score: 2
I agree with regard to the back button, have you tried suggesting the new (msie) behaviour on the relevant Mozilla development list?
While being modest on/. may be a good thing, it doesn't help the targetted desicion makers know why he should bother to read the article. So, assiming that it is going to be published somewhere else (closer to the target audience), RN should give his (quite impressive) credentials.
IBM needs the patents to defend themselves against patent infrigements lawsuits. When someone claims IBM violates their patent, IBM can usually provide an array of IBM patents the other company is violating. Result: A cross-license agreement.
Please do not put ESR and TC in the same category. ESR has a sense of humor, an even better sense of the community, and are able to disagree in a civil manner. Sure, sometimes ESR says things that he probably wouldn't have said a day later, but does never do that?
Someone needs the code, someone pays you to write it. This is how the majority of programming jobs works.
For a minority of programming jobs, the need is distributed on a large number of people, so no single one can pay you. Read the other replies for ideas for how make money on these situations.
Also, there just might be situations where the current model of proprietary code works best. Time will tell.
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Result: TC is trying by all means to rewrite history, so the whole "free software" thing is a devious plot invented by RMS to decieve people. He has tried various strawmans, used insults, and now he is trying satire. Not to mention his _other_ projects to "get even" on RMS, such as creating a GNU free BSD/Linux.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
Mozilla is stronger than ever!
on
Browser news
·
· Score: 3
Arrgg!!!
Anyone who follows the development groups even supperficially, or simply see how one milestone after another are meet, knows that the Mozilla project is progressing _very_ well.
And this isn't some GPL vs. OSI contest. RMS want, just like everybody in the free software community with a clue, the Mozilla project to succede. To decision makers everywhere, Mozilla is _the_ test of whether the free software/open source (no, they don't care about the difference) works.
JWZ is a great hacker and has an intriguing personality, but he is not a good designer, nor a good project leader.
People worship him because of his personality and because of his programming skills, but everything he says shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Mozilla.org has, as far as I can see, been running better and more smoothly since he left, even if (or maybe because of) it no longer is personified by a strong and very visible personality.
The original delay is _not_ due to mozilla.org being run badly, but two other factors:
1) The original decission to base the free 5.0 release on the old code.
2) Netscape's decision to release a (non-free) 4.5 based on the old code.
Since they changed to the new code base the code has been progressing smoothly, with milestones being meet within a week.
Also, while one cannot expect significant outside contributions before one has working code to show, they have already received contributions such as ports to "minor" platforms and translations to tons of languages, as well as a continues stream og bug reports and fixes, especially for partability.
However, the major affect at this point of going open source, is on the quality of the design. Since they went Open Source they have made all the right technical decissions. Close adherence to standards, no more proprietary Netscape extensions, clear and documented API's between components, use of standard and open tools wherever possible. Netscape 4.x is something a good engineer would be ashamed of, 5.0 will be something he can be proud of. I'm not sure how much of this is due to outside input, and how much is simply due to the process being open for everybody to see.
It seems to me that the Sun/Java guy is only attacking Mozilla because it works so well compared to the failed attempt to sell their own Java development as being some bastardization of open. The dangerous thing is that the AOL suits may not be able to see that the Mozilla project is working very well _now_, and buy into his lies.
Actually this is not true, only individuals can be members, and if you follow the link to the particular individuals home page, it claim that he works for c2net. Maybe it is a joke.
The main author has to get permission from everyone who submits patches in order to use them in the proprietary versions. Or he can rewrite them himself. neither are particularily hard. Peter L. Deutch has been doing this for years with Ghostscript.
Re:GPL vs. funding; usability in kernel releases?
on
Reiserfs Released
·
· Score: 1
1) You can dsirtibute your _own_ code under any number of licenses you want. So you can distribute it under both the GPL and under other licenses for use in proprietary code.
2) Namesys wants money from distributers of proprietary Unixen for whom the GPL is unacceptable, I very much doubt they also expect money from distributers of free operating systems.
Tom Christiansen: Free means gratis!
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
> It's disappointing that we must once > again embark upon yet another long, spiteful, > and completely useless Gnu-vs-Free Software > flamewar on Slashdot.
Actually, the discussion had been quite civil until your post.
> But I begin to wonder: are the lies somehow > indispensable to the promulgation of the cult?
The really sad part is that all that venom (compare the tone of TC's post with RMS' initial post) is because RMS wanted some free documentation to suplement TC's gratis, but non-free (by FSF standards) Perl documentation. The whole article could have been replaced with the statement "free means gratis!" without any loss of information.
Slashdot Mirror
> If we start cloning things now, birds, sheep,
> etc. even to fix a mistake on our part, whats
> to prevent us from having made to order humans
> in the future?
If we *don't* start cloning things now, what's to prevent us from having made to order humans in the future?
In any case, we can't *start* cloning humans and animals now, as we have been doing it for many years already. The big discussion you probably remember from some time ago was about cloning *adults*, not cloning in general.
Cloning is a well established technique, in particular for plants.
If it wasn't send to many people (or many copies to one person) then it is not spam.
If the people asked for it, it is not spam.
If it was send to many people who did not ask for it, it _is_ spam.
Content doesn't enter the equation.
The reason some novices think content matter, is because most spam have a very low quality content. So when thye hear "that is spam", they assume the word refers to the quality of the content, not to the fact that it was send to many people who did not ask for it.
Of course, in fact they rely solely on "dumb luck" in order to be right about anything.
1. I consider it less problematic that GPL'ed software might lose some restrictions than if it gained them.
2. As I wrote, the contract is quote detailed and leave very little room for change. Unfortunately, I only have paper copies of the contract. Maybe someone else can refer to an online copy.
You missed two important facts:
1. There is always the choice of using the old license, so a new GPL can only remove restrictions on the old code, never create more restrictions.
2. The FSF sends a contract to everyone who donates code, which guareentees that the code will remain free. The contract is almost as detailed about this as the GPL, and leave _very_ little room for changes.
I agree with regard to the back button, have you tried suggesting the new (msie) behaviour on the relevant Mozilla development list?
> SAS allows developers to write a program once
> and have a text-based and a GUI interface.
...not to mention its strong build-in support for statistical analysis.
While being modest on /. may be a good thing, it doesn't help the targetted desicion makers know why he should bother to read the article. So, assiming that it is going to be published somewhere else (closer to the target audience), RN should give his (quite impressive) credentials.
I don't think that is a bad score, it is always the ones who feel strongly on a subject who replies.
IBM needs the patents to defend themselves against patent infrigements lawsuits. When someone claims IBM violates their patent, IBM can usually provide an array of IBM patents the other company is violating. Result: A cross-license agreement.
Please do not put ESR and TC in the same category. ESR has a sense of humor, an even better sense of the community, and are able to disagree in a civil manner. Sure, sometimes ESR says things that he probably wouldn't have said a day later, but does never do that?
You are absolutely correct. Which makes TC's current campaign even more of an overreaction.
Someone needs the code, someone pays you to write it. This is how the majority of programming jobs works.
For a minority of programming jobs, the need is distributed on a large number of people, so no single one can pay you. Read the other replies for ideas for how make money on these situations.
Also, there just might be situations where the current model of proprietary code works best. Time will tell.
Sigh.
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Result: TC is trying by all means to rewrite history, so the whole "free software" thing is a devious plot invented by RMS to decieve people. He has tried various strawmans, used insults, and now he is trying satire. Not to mention his _other_ projects to "get even" on RMS, such as creating a GNU free BSD/Linux.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
Arrgg!!!
Anyone who follows the development groups even supperficially, or simply see how one milestone after another are meet, knows that the Mozilla project is progressing _very_ well.
And this isn't some GPL vs. OSI contest. RMS want, just like everybody in the free software community with a clue, the Mozilla project to succede. To decision makers everywhere, Mozilla is _the_ test of whether the free software/open source (no, they don't care about the difference) works.
JWZ is a great hacker and has an intriguing personality, but he is not a good designer, nor a good project leader.
People worship him because of his personality and because of his programming skills, but everything he says shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Mozilla.org has, as far as I can see, been running better and more smoothly since he left, even if (or maybe because of) it no longer is personified by a strong and very visible personality.
The original delay is _not_ due to mozilla.org being run badly, but two other factors:
1) The original decission to base the free 5.0 release on the old code.
2) Netscape's decision to release a (non-free) 4.5 based on the old code.
Since they changed to the new code base the code has been progressing smoothly, with milestones being meet within a week.
Also, while one cannot expect significant outside contributions before one has working code to show, they have already received contributions such as ports to "minor" platforms and translations to tons of languages, as well as a continues stream og bug reports and fixes, especially for partability.
However, the major affect at this point of going open source, is on the quality of the design. Since they went Open Source they have made all the right technical decissions. Close adherence to standards, no more proprietary Netscape extensions, clear and documented API's between components, use of standard and open tools wherever possible. Netscape 4.x is something a good engineer would be ashamed of, 5.0 will be something he can be proud of. I'm not sure how much of this is due to outside input, and how much is simply due to the process being open for everybody to see.
It seems to me that the Sun/Java guy is only attacking Mozilla because it works so well compared to the failed attempt to sell their own Java development as being some bastardization of open. The dangerous thing is that the AOL suits may not be able to see that the Mozilla project is working very well _now_, and buy into his lies.
Actually this is not true, only individuals can be members, and if you follow the link to the particular individuals home page, it claim that he works for c2net. Maybe it is a joke.
The main author has to get permission from everyone who submits patches in order to use them in the proprietary versions. Or he can rewrite them himself. neither are particularily hard. Peter L. Deutch has been doing this for years with Ghostscript.
1) You can dsirtibute your _own_ code under any number of licenses you want. So you can distribute it under both the GPL and under other licenses for use in proprietary code.
2) Namesys wants money from distributers of proprietary Unixen for whom the GPL is unacceptable, I very much doubt they also expect money from distributers of free operating systems.
> It's disappointing that we must once
> again embark upon yet another long, spiteful,
> and completely useless Gnu-vs-Free Software
> flamewar on Slashdot.
Actually, the discussion had been quite civil until your post.
> But I begin to wonder: are the lies somehow
> indispensable to the promulgation of the cult?
The really sad part is that all that venom (compare the tone of TC's post with RMS' initial post) is because RMS wanted some free documentation to suplement TC's gratis, but non-free (by FSF standards) Perl documentation. The whole article could have been replaced with the statement "free means gratis!" without any loss of information.
Are they going to need a full time employee to support gcc, are are Red Hat going to do any development on the compiler as well?
I suspect people who are smart enough to use a version control system are also smart enough not to let Linus think for them.
CVS is used for _many_ free software projects, for example egcs, who are known not to worship Linus.
The main goal of the BSD license is to improve the quality of software, both proprietary or free.
The main goal of the GPL is to promote the free software cause.
Both licenses do a good job at achieving their goal. Both goals are honarable. People who speak ill of either license are twits.
PS: the GPL vs BSD license debate predates Linux.
The SGI developers responsible for XFS have been very active in the kernel list, so I suspect it will work just like any other large subsystem.