And let's not ignore the fact that the original quote was "open source models"
The "original quote" talked about software in general, not just games.
And you can be certain that open source software has made a big contribution to keeping desktop machines general purpose and programmable.
(If your interpretation of a statement contradicts the facts, you should realize that often the problem is with your interpretation, not with the original statement.)
Console games almost completely crush PC games in market share these days,
You're absolutely right that for games, consoles with their restrictive licensing models are widely used. My point is that that isn't the case for desktop computing yet and we need to keep it that way. The GPL is one way of doing that.
I've got some bad news for you, they have caught on
We can still get fully programmable standard PCs without gatekeepers. One of the reasons for that is because a lot of software can't run on those other platforms. And the GPL helps keep that so.
and are more popular then open source models.
If you believe that, you're a bit out of touch with reality.
What's sad about it? If platform licensing models like Xbox, PS/3, and iPhone were to catch on, you could kiss open source development good-bye. And there is a big risk that the consumer market will drive us into that direction. We need to fight that any way we can.
And if the GPL makes it more costly to do marketing and QA of software for those platforms, I think that's great. That is exactly what the GPL is intended to accomplish.
The only reason the GPL version of Nexuiz can't be used on Xbox and Sony is because those platforms have draconian licensing requirements.
The fact that the GPL makes it impossible to deliver the code on those platforms means it is working as intended. As an open source developer, I have no interest in supporting those platforms; if those kinds of platforms catch on, all software development is in deep trouble.
Apache/BSD gives you more freedoms than GPL does and mandates fewer restrictions.
The freedom the GPL cares about is the freedom to access the source code of any application you use. Apache/BSD do not guarantee that freedom, the GPL guarantees it at least for software that falls under the GPL.
The freedom you care about about, namely that you can take someone else's open source software and make proprietary versions of it, is not a freedom I care about. I may grant you that freedom if it serves my purpose, but other than that, you can just get lost as far as I'm concerned.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Do you realize that the IP stack in systems we use today are ALL based on BSD licensed code? The fact that the Internet works as well as it does is because people could all use a common bit of code, in their own projects, without having to turn EVERYTHING ELSE over to the public.
Yes, and GNU realized that, which is why there is the LGPL and the GPL with linking exception. And many people who license some code under the GPL also license other code under BSD or Apache.
Yep, that is exactly true, and you're a dumbass for thinking thats a bad thing.
No, you're a "dumbass" for thinking that because a license works well for something, it must work well for everything. There are different licenses for different purposes.
For something like a small, standards-setting library, something you want companies to incorporate into their own operating systems, a BSD or Apache license is fine.
For something like a game, end-user app, kernel, or compiler, the GPL is the better license. And that's probably one of the reasons Linux and gcc have succeeded where BSD has largely failed.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms [from those freedoms ensured by the GPL], and a different set of limitations placed on them [different from those limitations placed on them by the GPL].
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
You're right. Only BSD-style "do what you like, but don't sue us" licenses mean true freedom
No, they do not. When someone takes code licensed under the BSD license and distributes it binary only, they limit everybody else's freedom to study, modify, enhance, and interoperate with that code. That is less freedom than under the GPL, not more.
YesIAmAScript is picking with the GPL is that you are denied the freedom to keep derivatives closed-source.
If you distribute your derivatives under a closed-source license, you limit my freedom to study and modify the code you have written. Hence, I have less freedom than under the GPL.
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
You have to realize that these anti-trust actions were lobbied for and designed to benefit competitors, not to help the consumer.
When it comes to anti-trust enforcement, that's pretty much the same thing.
The problem with Microsoft is not the software they produce (bad as it may be) or the fact that they are successful, it's that potential competitors don't even have a chance to enter the market. Anti-trust enforcement attempts to address that. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do.
And while it's not going to reverse Microsoft's desktop monopoly overnight, it has limited their ability to monopolize other markets.
But Windows isn't a "good deal"; it's actually quite expensive and overpriced, given that the same functionality is available even in free operating systems. Windows doesn't even work particularly well; I have had a lot more problems with hardware and software compatibility and usability with my Windows system than with my Linux systems.
The reason people have to buy Windows is because of bundling/tying and because of commercial software that only runs on Windows. But that's not "win-win".
He concluded it would be quite different from Windows or Unix.
Well, duh! Talk about stating the obvious. Those were not the systems I was referring to. My point is that he needs to read the literature, since there were plenty of operating system and programming languages other than Windows and UNIX/Linux at one point, some of them for massively parallel systems.
So you are basically saying: "It already scales perfectly to hugely parallel machines, so don't bother buying anything else, but in a couple of years, it will scale even more perfectly."
Give me a break. The NT kernel was never meant or designed for this kind of parallelism; other operating systems were.
You can't compare Switzerland and America like that. Switzerland is a small country with a very special economy. Many things work for them that don't work in most other nations. For example, when they have unemployment, they can simply kick out a bunch of foreign workers. And the Swiss are pretty conservative to begin with, so a lot of what's not regulated by laws is enforced by social norms. On the other hand, in other areas, the Swiss government can be a lot more intrusive than the US government.
Microsoft should go back and read some of the literature on parallel computing from 20-30 years ago. Machines with many cores are nothing new. And Microsoft could have designed for it if they hadn't been busy re-implementing a bloated version of VMS.
Except that an oil spill doesn't look beneficial on paper.
On paper, an oil spill is a net economic benefit.
Also, public servants working in an office is not equivalent to an oil spill (an economic and environmental disaster) - they are actually providing useful labor.
They're not providing a useful service if the same function can be performed more efficiently online.
But you provide no analysis of what these imaginary jobs are, and why they might be better provided by machines.
Slashdot Mirror
And let's not ignore the fact that the original quote was "open source models"
The "original quote" talked about software in general, not just games.
And you can be certain that open source software has made a big contribution to keeping desktop machines general purpose and programmable.
(If your interpretation of a statement contradicts the facts, you should realize that often the problem is with your interpretation, not with the original statement.)
Console games almost completely crush PC games in market share these days,
You're absolutely right that for games, consoles with their restrictive licensing models are widely used. My point is that that isn't the case for desktop computing yet and we need to keep it that way. The GPL is one way of doing that.
That capability has been available for a while in the Gimp as part of the Resynth plugin:
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer
It lets you resynthesize a texture, fill in a selection with surrounding content, and synthesize images "in the theme" of another image.
Get the resynth plugin:
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer
I've got some bad news for you...
General purpose, programmable machines without gatekeepers are still the primary way people compute at home and at work. We need to keep it that way.
I've got some bad news for you, they have caught on
We can still get fully programmable standard PCs without gatekeepers. One of the reasons for that is because a lot of software can't run on those other platforms. And the GPL helps keep that so.
and are more popular then open source models.
If you believe that, you're a bit out of touch with reality.
What's sad about it? If platform licensing models like Xbox, PS/3, and iPhone were to catch on, you could kiss open source development good-bye. And there is a big risk that the consumer market will drive us into that direction. We need to fight that any way we can.
And if the GPL makes it more costly to do marketing and QA of software for those platforms, I think that's great. That is exactly what the GPL is intended to accomplish.
The only reason the GPL version of Nexuiz can't be used on Xbox and Sony is because those platforms have draconian licensing requirements.
The fact that the GPL makes it impossible to deliver the code on those platforms means it is working as intended. As an open source developer, I have no interest in supporting those platforms; if those kinds of platforms catch on, all software development is in deep trouble.
Apache/BSD gives you more freedoms than GPL does and mandates fewer restrictions.
The freedom the GPL cares about is the freedom to access the source code of any application you use. Apache/BSD do not guarantee that freedom, the GPL guarantees it at least for software that falls under the GPL.
The freedom you care about about, namely that you can take someone else's open source software and make proprietary versions of it, is not a freedom I care about. I may grant you that freedom if it serves my purpose, but other than that, you can just get lost as far as I'm concerned.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Spare me your biased, ideological drivel.
Do you realize that the IP stack in systems we use today are ALL based on BSD licensed code? The fact that the Internet works as well as it does is because people could all use a common bit of code, in their own projects, without having to turn EVERYTHING ELSE over to the public.
Yes, and GNU realized that, which is why there is the LGPL and the GPL with linking exception. And many people who license some code under the GPL also license other code under BSD or Apache.
Yep, that is exactly true, and you're a dumbass for thinking thats a bad thing.
No, you're a "dumbass" for thinking that because a license works well for something, it must work well for everything. There are different licenses for different purposes.
For something like a small, standards-setting library, something you want companies to incorporate into their own operating systems, a BSD or Apache license is fine.
For something like a game, end-user app, kernel, or compiler, the GPL is the better license. And that's probably one of the reasons Linux and gcc have succeeded where BSD has largely failed.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
You're right. Only BSD-style "do what you like, but don't sue us" licenses mean true freedom
No, they do not. When someone takes code licensed under the BSD license and distributes it binary only, they limit everybody else's freedom to study, modify, enhance, and interoperate with that code. That is less freedom than under the GPL, not more.
YesIAmAScript is picking with the GPL is that you are denied the freedom to keep derivatives closed-source.
If you distribute your derivatives under a closed-source license, you limit my freedom to study and modify the code you have written. Hence, I have less freedom than under the GPL.
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile.
Really? Which ones? I don't know of any.
You have to realize that these anti-trust actions were lobbied for and designed to benefit competitors, not to help the consumer.
When it comes to anti-trust enforcement, that's pretty much the same thing.
The problem with Microsoft is not the software they produce (bad as it may be) or the fact that they are successful, it's that potential competitors don't even have a chance to enter the market. Anti-trust enforcement attempts to address that. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do.
And while it's not going to reverse Microsoft's desktop monopoly overnight, it has limited their ability to monopolize other markets.
But most people want a good deal,
But Windows isn't a "good deal"; it's actually quite expensive and overpriced, given that the same functionality is available even in free operating systems. Windows doesn't even work particularly well; I have had a lot more problems with hardware and software compatibility and usability with my Windows system than with my Linux systems.
The reason people have to buy Windows is because of bundling/tying and because of commercial software that only runs on Windows. But that's not "win-win".
He concluded it would be quite different from Windows or Unix.
Well, duh! Talk about stating the obvious. Those were not the systems I was referring to. My point is that he needs to read the literature, since there were plenty of operating system and programming languages other than Windows and UNIX/Linux at one point, some of them for massively parallel systems.
Open source software (VNC) pioneers this and then it gets progressively turned into ever more proprietary protocols.
So you are basically saying: "It already scales perfectly to hugely parallel machines, so don't bother buying anything else, but in a couple of years, it will scale even more perfectly."
Give me a break. The NT kernel was never meant or designed for this kind of parallelism; other operating systems were.
You can't compare Switzerland and America like that. Switzerland is a small country with a very special economy. Many things work for them that don't work in most other nations. For example, when they have unemployment, they can simply kick out a bunch of foreign workers. And the Swiss are pretty conservative to begin with, so a lot of what's not regulated by laws is enforced by social norms. On the other hand, in other areas, the Swiss government can be a lot more intrusive than the US government.
Microsoft should go back and read some of the literature on parallel computing from 20-30 years ago. Machines with many cores are nothing new. And Microsoft could have designed for it if they hadn't been busy re-implementing a bloated version of VMS.
Well, the laws allow for that. But the guard didn't get charged.
Which raises the question again: how would you change the law so that a different verdict could have been reached in this case?
Except that an oil spill doesn't look beneficial on paper.
On paper, an oil spill is a net economic benefit.
Also, public servants working in an office is not equivalent to an oil spill (an economic and environmental disaster) - they are actually providing useful labor.
They're not providing a useful service if the same function can be performed more efficiently online.
But you provide no analysis of what these imaginary jobs are, and why they might be better provided by machines.
RTFA.