I disagree. In a free country, if the majority of citizens ignore a law, then that law is wrong. In America, if the majority of citizens ignore a law or think it is wrong, the citizens are wrong. You are assuming America is still a free country, and I disagree with that.
The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL.
I think that is more accurate than my comment. I would agree. I'll reevaluate the issue, as I always have something to learn, but I still think my original comment about Android being open, but not free (as in hackable without jailbreaking) is still true. It IS open, but it is not modifiable. Thanks again.
Yes, you are trying to start a license debate / war.
Really? What side am I on? I clearly stated "I am not saying, in this post, that one licence is better than the other . ..," so starting a war without choosing a side seems a little unusual. Please do not see malice where the intention is to educate.
The Free Software Foundation regards the Apache license as a Free Software license compatible with version 3 of the GPL. It is free and open. Free does not mean copyleft - copyleft means copyleft. Free (in the FSF sense), means granting the person receiving the code the four freedoms that the FSF outlines, and the Apache license does, indeed, provide these freedoms.
You are confusing FSF with OSI. RMS often tries to be clear that he represents Free software, and NOT open source. Different camp. FSF represents Free software and the GPL only. OSI represents open source, of which GPL is one license in the group. GNU code is only under GPL/LGPL. They do mention compatibility, because they understand they are part of a bigger world.
In a nutshell, Apache, among other noncopyleft licenses, allows for freedom. Copyleft licenses protect freedom. Which is better, obviously depends upon your beliefs and goals, but that is the fundamental difference. Further argument/debate/war is like saying apples taste better than oranges. Personal preference.
I don't blame you for confusing the issue, as it is a common thing. Marketing people are intentionally trying to mess the words up, and are doing a good job. It is open, but you have to jailbreak it first. Well, that may be true, but it certainly violates the connotation, even if it follows the denotation. That was my point above.
I just wanted to remind you of the differences between open and free. Android is Apache license. It IS open source, and if that is what you mean by "open," then yes it is. Is is not "free" because the Apache license is not copyleft, and so it does not protect your freedom (I don't think Google ever claimed it did. They only claimed it was good for the handset manufacturers. I could be wrong here though). I am not saying, in this post, that one licence is better than the other, so I am not starting another flame war. I am just stating that, yes, Android is open source, and no, it is not free. I think we just need to understand our terms better. Is Android open source better than iphone complete proprietary? That is another question for another post.
In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.
I have, and so have you. Ever know of a recovering alcoholic? I know quite a few. I am a physician. I frequently see people hooked on drugs, going down the drain, getting off the drugs, and being perfectly fine in a good job afterwards. When I see them, they tell me up front never to prescribe narcotics to them, because they will get hooked, and don't want to go there again.
If you follow the discussions, the community around Opensolaris is not enough to maintain a fork. 99.9% of the OS is developed and maintained by Oracle now. It's not like the Linux kernel where numerous people/companies contribute. Legally, you can fork Opensolaris given the CDDL. But maintaining a fork is just not realistic. If it was as popular as Linux, then okay, but that is the problem.
At best, oracle would not care. At worst, they would encourage the lawsuit. This says nothing about zfs, only about freedom to use it. Oracle can give customers indemnification on solaris/zfs based stuff. What can Nexenta do, other than provide a great product? Legall, they can only be on the defense, as they probably do not have enough patents for a counter-offense. Oracle can only benefit from this, as nexenta is a competitor.
Huh? The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the powers of government. Today, the government gives rights, and what the government giveth, government can taketh away. But don't confuse current situation from the original intent. If you go back and read the Bill of Rights, they are very carefully worded. "Congress shall make no law" or something like that. Not "you have the right to do this and that." Huge difference, but unfortunately irrelevant today with our plutocracy.
I believe that is quite possible. When you play his recording backwards, I'd swear I hear Edison saying "worship the devil!" I could be hearing things, but you never know . . .
If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there.
As humans, aren't we a little too hard on ourselves? First, we criticize ourselves for cutting down trees. Then, we criticize ourselves for global warming. Now, we criticize ourselves because our poops suck? Sheesh. When will it end?
One of the features of open source/software freedom, is to benefit the users, not the corporations. Red Hat often commented that they turned a multi-billion dollar industry into a multi-million dollar one. Why no billion dollar open source companies? Because users are cutting costs, competition is rising with more players, and there is less gouging going on. From a non-software corporation point of view, that's a good thing.
There are several reasons to do such research: 1. Be able to publish a paper and make a name for yourself. 2. Make policies so you can stand behind some meaningless principle that you can con others into believing and supporting your (political power). 3. Make money with the grants you get from such studies. 4. Get on good terms with your deity. In summary: gold, glory, and god. If we can learn something about human behavior, that may be an interesting side effect.
On the Family Guy, Peter thought he was a genius and played trivial pursuit with Brian. Peter asked Brian the question, and Brian answered "Cadmium?" Peter's response was "No. Tungsten, dumbass," as if that was an obvious answer. I'm disappointed that no one saw or remembered that scene, but I'm MORE disappointed that I actually do.
If a vendor came along and part of that proposal included a server running Windows Server 2008 and they rejected that proposal because it didn't meet their requirements, would the OSS community be up in arms then?
Maybe. For example, if the requirement was to upgrade all RHEL to all bids for the next RHEL version with trademarks in place, then yes. Up in arms. If requirement was upgrade to any GNU/Linux: Novell, RHEL, Oracle (he he he), Ubuntu, CentOs with support of local firm, then no. The concept is competition. Yes, I understand the comparison in this context doesn't fit perfectly, but any time I can be unfair to a corporation, I'll jump at it.
This was the model for creative art for hundreds of years. There were patrons, who sponsored commission on a work. Afterwards, the patron owned the work, but the rest of the world got to appreciate it. In other words, the patron could use it for whatever purpose they wanted, but the rest of the world could only use it for viewing (modern equivalent of non-commercial purposes imo). The flaw in using this model in the modern era, is that neither group can make sick money. Honest living, yes. Sick money, no.
Also on the upside, I can start printing facts like "I am a liar and a cheat." So if someone calls me that, I can sue for copyright infringement, which is worth millions, and I can also call the FBI to assist in prosecution!
So you blame a system as being broken when it's the people that do the breaking?
Not quite, although I can see where you got that from. What I am saying is that a system open to blatant corruption is a broken system. We can obviously differ on definitions of "blatant corruption." My opinion, the patent system is open to "blatant corruption" to the extreme. Ergo, the patent system is broken.
Excellent, car analogies. I am not arguing the theory of patents with you, only the implementation. If there were no rules on roads regarding direction of flow, stop signs/lights, speed, etc, people can still drive carefully and avoid accidents. But that is just not a reasonable expectation. Therefore, we need to make rules and enforce them. Otherwise, the system would be broken: open to blatant corruption . . . "because most people drive like assholes." People still break the laws and drive like assholes, but the system doesn't seem broken in this case. At least, not according to my view of "blatant corruption." Boy, I sure like those quotes, don't I?
It's not the patent system that is broken. It's the people who use it that are broken.
Isn't that the basis of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken. Because you just can't expect people to naturally play nice, and not game the system.
With regard to your earlier post, eliminating patents would screw over the honest patent appliers. Status quo screws over everyone.
The onus is on you to show that this massive interference in the lives of billions of people is justified. The handwaving and wishful thinking that patent proponents usually engage in is not even remotely sufficient.
100% agree. In a free society (not saying we have one in the US, just in theory), the default should be to protect freedom and prevent monopolies, unless there is some overwhelming reason to otherwise limit this freedom. In the US, and much of the world, we forgot that somewhere along the line.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. In a free country, if the majority of citizens ignore a law, then that law is wrong. In America, if the majority of citizens ignore a law or think it is wrong, the citizens are wrong. You are assuming America is still a free country, and I disagree with that.
In that case, we'll just make it out of unobtanium.
The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL.
I think that is more accurate than my comment. I would agree. I'll reevaluate the issue, as I always have something to learn, but I still think my original comment about Android being open, but not free (as in hackable without jailbreaking) is still true. It IS open, but it is not modifiable. Thanks again.
Free vs Open Source
Yes, you are trying to start a license debate / war.
Really? What side am I on? I clearly stated "I am not saying, in this post, that one licence is better than the other . . .," so starting a war without choosing a side seems a little unusual. Please do not see malice where the intention is to educate.
The Free Software Foundation regards the Apache license as a Free Software license compatible with version 3 of the GPL. It is free and open. Free does not mean copyleft - copyleft means copyleft. Free (in the FSF sense), means granting the person receiving the code the four freedoms that the FSF outlines, and the Apache license does, indeed, provide these freedoms.
You are confusing FSF with OSI. RMS often tries to be clear that he represents Free software, and NOT open source. Different camp. FSF represents Free software and the GPL only. OSI represents open source, of which GPL is one license in the group. GNU code is only under GPL/LGPL. They do mention compatibility, because they understand they are part of a bigger world.
In a nutshell, Apache, among other noncopyleft licenses, allows for freedom. Copyleft licenses protect freedom. Which is better, obviously depends upon your beliefs and goals, but that is the fundamental difference. Further argument/debate/war is like saying apples taste better than oranges. Personal preference.
I don't blame you for confusing the issue, as it is a common thing. Marketing people are intentionally trying to mess the words up, and are doing a good job. It is open, but you have to jailbreak it first. Well, that may be true, but it certainly violates the connotation, even if it follows the denotation. That was my point above.
I just wanted to remind you of the differences between open and free. Android is Apache license. It IS open source, and if that is what you mean by "open," then yes it is. Is is not "free" because the Apache license is not copyleft, and so it does not protect your freedom (I don't think Google ever claimed it did. They only claimed it was good for the handset manufacturers. I could be wrong here though). I am not saying, in this post, that one licence is better than the other, so I am not starting another flame war. I am just stating that, yes, Android is open source, and no, it is not free. I think we just need to understand our terms better. Is Android open source better than iphone complete proprietary? That is another question for another post.
In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.
I have, and so have you. Ever know of a recovering alcoholic? I know quite a few. I am a physician. I frequently see people hooked on drugs, going down the drain, getting off the drugs, and being perfectly fine in a good job afterwards. When I see them, they tell me up front never to prescribe narcotics to them, because they will get hooked, and don't want to go there again.
Using monkeys is a classic tail of innovation.
If you follow the discussions, the community around Opensolaris is not enough to maintain a fork. 99.9% of the OS is developed and maintained by Oracle now. It's not like the Linux kernel where numerous people/companies contribute. Legally, you can fork Opensolaris given the CDDL. But maintaining a fork is just not realistic. If it was as popular as Linux, then okay, but that is the problem.
At best, oracle would not care. At worst, they would encourage the lawsuit. This says nothing about zfs, only about freedom to use it. Oracle can give customers indemnification on solaris/zfs based stuff. What can Nexenta do, other than provide a great product? Legall, they can only be on the defense, as they probably do not have enough patents for a counter-offense. Oracle can only benefit from this, as nexenta is a competitor.
Huh? The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the powers of government. Today, the government gives rights, and what the government giveth, government can taketh away. But don't confuse current situation from the original intent. If you go back and read the Bill of Rights, they are very carefully worded. "Congress shall make no law" or something like that. Not "you have the right to do this and that." Huge difference, but unfortunately irrelevant today with our plutocracy.
I believe that is quite possible. When you play his recording backwards, I'd swear I hear Edison saying "worship the devil!" I could be hearing things, but you never know . . .
If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there.
As humans, aren't we a little too hard on ourselves? First, we criticize ourselves for cutting down trees. Then, we criticize ourselves for global warming. Now, we criticize ourselves because our poops suck? Sheesh. When will it end?
One of the features of open source/software freedom, is to benefit the users, not the corporations. Red Hat often commented that they turned a multi-billion dollar industry into a multi-million dollar one. Why no billion dollar open source companies? Because users are cutting costs, competition is rising with more players, and there is less gouging going on. From a non-software corporation point of view, that's a good thing.
There are several reasons to do such research: 1. Be able to publish a paper and make a name for yourself. 2. Make policies so you can stand behind some meaningless principle that you can con others into believing and supporting your (political power). 3. Make money with the grants you get from such studies. 4. Get on good terms with your deity. In summary: gold, glory, and god. If we can learn something about human behavior, that may be an interesting side effect.
On the Family Guy, Peter thought he was a genius and played trivial pursuit with Brian. Peter asked Brian the question, and Brian answered "Cadmium?" Peter's response was "No. Tungsten, dumbass," as if that was an obvious answer. I'm disappointed that no one saw or remembered that scene, but I'm MORE disappointed that I actually do.
What naturally occurring substance has the highest known melting point? Answer: Cadmium?
If a vendor came along and part of that proposal included a server running Windows Server 2008 and they rejected that proposal because it didn't meet their requirements, would the OSS community be up in arms then?
Maybe. For example, if the requirement was to upgrade all RHEL to all bids for the next RHEL version with trademarks in place, then yes. Up in arms. If requirement was upgrade to any GNU/Linux: Novell, RHEL, Oracle (he he he), Ubuntu, CentOs with support of local firm, then no. The concept is competition. Yes, I understand the comparison in this context doesn't fit perfectly, but any time I can be unfair to a corporation, I'll jump at it.
This was the model for creative art for hundreds of years. There were patrons, who sponsored commission on a work. Afterwards, the patron owned the work, but the rest of the world got to appreciate it. In other words, the patron could use it for whatever purpose they wanted, but the rest of the world could only use it for viewing (modern equivalent of non-commercial purposes imo). The flaw in using this model in the modern era, is that neither group can make sick money. Honest living, yes. Sick money, no.
Also on the upside, I can start printing facts like "I am a liar and a cheat." So if someone calls me that, I can sue for copyright infringement, which is worth millions, and I can also call the FBI to assist in prosecution!
Hey, now that's just fighting words. That was my favorite movie. Yeah, and what of it! No, seriously, it was.
So you blame a system as being broken when it's the people that do the breaking?
Not quite, although I can see where you got that from. What I am saying is that a system open to blatant corruption is a broken system. We can obviously differ on definitions of "blatant corruption." My opinion, the patent system is open to "blatant corruption" to the extreme. Ergo, the patent system is broken.
Excellent, car analogies. I am not arguing the theory of patents with you, only the implementation. If there were no rules on roads regarding direction of flow, stop signs/lights, speed, etc, people can still drive carefully and avoid accidents. But that is just not a reasonable expectation. Therefore, we need to make rules and enforce them. Otherwise, the system would be broken: open to blatant corruption . . . "because most people drive like assholes." People still break the laws and drive like assholes, but the system doesn't seem broken in this case. At least, not according to my view of "blatant corruption." Boy, I sure like those quotes, don't I?
It's not the patent system that is broken. It's the people who use it that are broken.
Isn't that the basis of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken. Because you just can't expect people to naturally play nice, and not game the system.
With regard to your earlier post, eliminating patents would screw over the honest patent appliers. Status quo screws over everyone.
Several solutions, but the most obvious would be to upgrade to wife 2.0+.
The onus is on you to show that this massive interference in the lives of billions of people is justified. The handwaving and wishful thinking that patent proponents usually engage in is not even remotely sufficient.
100% agree. In a free society (not saying we have one in the US, just in theory), the default should be to protect freedom and prevent monopolies, unless there is some overwhelming reason to otherwise limit this freedom. In the US, and much of the world, we forgot that somewhere along the line.
I refuse to use software that's been tested on animals.
Yet, you use software that has been, and is currently being tested on human beings all the time. Oh, the humanity!