Which is funny since they are wagging their e-peens around claiming to be the all-knowing, world champion programmers but have apparently never learned such basic lessons.
Does anyone else find it funny when hydrocodoine addict and hypocrite Rush Limbaugh constantly rails on how there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution yet constantly whines about someone infringing on his own apparent "right to privacy" when it comes to his medical records?
I guess you're right in principle (as both a reciprocal licences and therefore encourage dual-licencing) but the GPL is scary to a lot of people and its not the best written licence in that a lot of its content is in the preamble which has no legal standing so far as I understand.
The GPL reads more like a manifesto than a licence. As a company, it is not our stance that we want to abolish the evil capitalist software market in favour of a socialist or libertarian anarchic utopia:) it just suits our purposes to have the code out there and to have a good reason to undercut the competition.
That's perfectly fine if you want to do so for an ideological reason, but the objections you raised in the previous post have no bearing on your company as the copyright holder of the code.
Depends on how fast you can get it revoked...So several hours go by while your bank account is drained and your personal information stolen. Oh, and he's already halfway around the world.
And this is any different than if someone steals your wallet today, how?
The GPL is an extreme open source licence which effectively says no-one should be able to make more than their hourly rate from software.
And yet the GPL apparently didn't stop MySQL, TrollTech, etc etc from making way more than their hourly rate for the software. While the GPL may restrict certain things that third parties can do, the license can't obligate the copyright holder, aka your company, to do anything you don't want.
Once we have taken over the market with our free open-source offering, we plan to make proprietary versions and modules as well as taking a royalty from third parties who can use our platform as a way to get their expertise to market in software.
And you couldn't have done this if the code was GPL, how?
I think you mean "it doesn't dictate what you can or cannot do with someone else's code. The GPL can't force the copyright holder of the code to do anything.
Because identity theft is so hard today considering, in the US for example, you can find pretty much all the pertinent information you need from public sources?
The government can't do anything better than the private sector with the exception of national defense.
And yet without any cross-subsidizing, this government is providing a level of service far beyond Time Warner's for far cheaper. As far as I can tell, that would be "doing it better" than the private sector.
Well at least it was somewhat better than the European Union version which actually revived the copyrights on works that went in to the public domain when they retroactively extended copyrights.
You do realize that the AGPL is not the GPL right?
Yes, but if you were worried about this you should have been using the AGPL since it came out in 2002.
And that not many projects use the AGPL?
Then they should have been using it had they cared enough.
Only GPLv3 has an Affero type clause in it and many GPLv2 licensed projects haven't moved to GPLv3.
Actually that's false. There is an Affero clause for GPLv2 which you would have noticed had you read my link.
The Affero General Public License, often abbreviated as Affero GPL and AGPL (and sometimes informally called the Affero license) refers to two distinct, though historically related, free software licenses:
* the Affero General Public License, version 1, published by Affero, Inc. in March 2002, and based closely on the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2),
But what would the business model be? Any MySQL fork no longer has the ability to dual license the software since the copyrights have been sold. That's how MySQL AB made money.
Ask Monty what that would be. He's the one making a new business off of the fork. I'm sure he has a plan otherwise I doubt he'd be sinking his money into it.
Developers, and their families, can't eat freedom and self righteousness.
I'm pretty sure Monty is paying the people to work on his fork.
Of course you can relicense future versions under a new license and I never said otherwise (in fact in another post in this article I said just this). The person I responded to was talking about someone revoking the GPL for previous versions of the code which is not possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is funny since they are wagging their e-peens around claiming to be the all-knowing, world champion programmers but have apparently never learned such basic lessons.
I'd have thought most people who post here would be savvy enough to have NoScript installed.
They are talking about disabling JavaScript in Adobe Reader, not in your web browser.
I would suspect that human hair would be cheaper as there isn't any other use for it.
It's used a lot in wigs.
and can also make plants grow up to 30 percent larger.'"
Maybe someone needs to use this idea to make a super penis pill!
Since internet gambling usually involves either intra-state or intra-country commerce, the states never had the power to regulate that.
Does anyone else find it funny when hydrocodoine addict and hypocrite Rush Limbaugh constantly rails on how there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution yet constantly whines about someone infringing on his own apparent "right to privacy" when it comes to his medical records?
I guess you're right in principle (as both a reciprocal licences and therefore encourage dual-licencing) but the GPL is scary to a lot of people and its not the best written licence in that a lot of its content is in the preamble which has no legal standing so far as I understand.
Well you understand wrongly. The GPL has been upheld in courts in multiple countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court
The GPL reads more like a manifesto than a licence. As a company, it is not our stance that we want to abolish the evil capitalist software market in favour of a socialist or libertarian anarchic utopia :) it just suits our purposes to have the code out there and to have a good reason to undercut the competition.
That's perfectly fine if you want to do so for an ideological reason, but the objections you raised in the previous post have no bearing on your company as the copyright holder of the code.
Depends on how fast you can get it revoked...So several hours go by while your bank account is drained and your personal information stolen. Oh, and he's already halfway around the world.
And this is any different than if someone steals your wallet today, how?
The GPL is an extreme open source licence which effectively says no-one should be able to make more than their hourly rate from software.
And yet the GPL apparently didn't stop MySQL, TrollTech, etc etc from making way more than their hourly rate for the software. While the GPL may restrict certain things that third parties can do, the license can't obligate the copyright holder, aka your company, to do anything you don't want.
Once we have taken over the market with our free open-source offering, we plan to make proprietary versions and modules as well as taking a royalty from third parties who can use our platform as a way to get their expertise to market in software.
And you couldn't have done this if the code was GPL, how?
It seems to work for MySQL, and others.
Because most of their revenue is from selling the software under the proprietary license.
I think you mean "it doesn't dictate what you can or cannot do with someone else's code. The GPL can't force the copyright holder of the code to do anything.
Because identity theft is so hard today considering, in the US for example, you can find pretty much all the pertinent information you need from public sources?
Until you lose your wallet and the person who finds it has complete control to ruin every aspect of your life connected to said card... ...
Yes, because clearly they would have no system to revoke lost cards.
The government can't do anything better than the private sector with the exception of national defense.
And yet without any cross-subsidizing, this government is providing a level of service far beyond Time Warner's for far cheaper. As far as I can tell, that would be "doing it better" than the private sector.
I love how any who protests their spyware/adware is a privacy "pirate". What the fuck does that even mean?
What country would be foolish enough to connect its power grid, hospital systems, air traffic control and it's banking system to the Internet.
The US, apparently.
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
Then go see a private practitioner. No one will stop you from doing so.
No, he would probably still get elected if he had the R on his name. The change to D probably better reflects his political beliefs anyway.
Well at least it was somewhat better than the European Union version which actually revived the copyrights on works that went in to the public domain when they retroactively extended copyrights.
Pretty doubtful that someone is running a SPARC processor in their laptop.
You do realize that the AGPL is not the GPL right?
Yes, but if you were worried about this you should have been using the AGPL since it came out in 2002.
And that not many projects use the AGPL?
Then they should have been using it had they cared enough.
Only GPLv3 has an Affero type clause in it and many GPLv2 licensed projects haven't moved to GPLv3.
Actually that's false. There is an Affero clause for GPLv2 which you would have noticed had you read my link.
The Affero General Public License, often abbreviated as Affero GPL and AGPL (and sometimes informally called the Affero license) refers to two distinct, though historically related, free software licenses:
* the Affero General Public License, version 1, published by Affero, Inc. in March 2002, and based closely on the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2),
Welcome to 7 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
But what would the business model be? Any MySQL fork no longer has the ability to dual license the software since the copyrights have been sold. That's how MySQL AB made money.
Ask Monty what that would be. He's the one making a new business off of the fork. I'm sure he has a plan otherwise I doubt he'd be sinking his money into it.
Developers, and their families, can't eat freedom and self righteousness.
I'm pretty sure Monty is paying the people to work on his fork.
What surprises me is that Sun didn't ask the main devs to sign a non-compete contract as part of the original deal.
Yes, I too am surprised that Sun didn't ask the main devs to sign an illegal non-compete agreement.
http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml
Of course you can relicense future versions under a new license and I never said otherwise (in fact in another post in this article I said just this). The person I responded to was talking about someone revoking the GPL for previous versions of the code which is not possible.