Some developers don't want their code taken and "locked" away in some proprietary app, while others don't care. I happen to go along with the GPL camp for the most part. If I give my time and effort to a community project, I don't want someone to be able to take that effort away and not have to give back to that community. Note that the GPL and people who believe in the GPL don't care about profits. If you can take a GPL app (like MySQL) and make money, so be it. Just don't try to take the code away.
The original code is never taken away, so I really don't see the problem here. Example: person 1 creates code X and releases under the GPL. Person 2 uses person 1's code in their own project, adds a few things, and doesn't release the source code.
Person 1's source code is still available to the public.
In the same sense that you do not want people to "lock up your source code" without compensation (credit), closed source developers do not want you to share the.exe without compensation (money).
They explain in their documentation/FAQ why the violations are important to protect against. If just anyone were to grab the source, use it and then close it, then you're just doing free programming and their taking credit for YOUR work.
You may as well offer to be a programmer to any random company for free and sign an NDA as well.
I don't enjoy feeding the trolls, but I will anyway. As I said in my previous post, this is not freedom. This is an organization (the FSF) attempting to force their propaganda on everyone else. If you are going to release your source with restrictions, it's fine, but don't pass it off as freedom.
It's even worse when groups like the FSF go after people for GNU "violations". If The GNU was truly free, it would be in the public domain available to anyone that wanted to use it. After all, if a business decides to use source code released under the GNU, the original source code is still free.
Additions are the only thing kept hidden (which in my opinion, should allowed to be kept hidden, if a person chooses).
Second, the GPLed code is available for no cost already, so there's no money-saving incentive to break the GPL. Instead, those who purposely violate the GPL are causing something to be less free, while collecting money for it. Also, passing off someone else's work as your own is an additional moral infraction, beyond just re-distribution
less free? how so?
Let's say I release source code under the GPL license. If a company decides to use it in their commerical application, the only code that isn't "free" is the code the company has created. The original code is still just as free. Therefore, I don't really see a problem.
and so what if they make money off of it...a person releasing it under the GPL doesn't expect to make any money anyway.
Bush and his crew were partying hard enough to make John Belushi blush. One of his friends pulled a stunt that got him kicked out of Yale, was forced to go to Vietnam and he died. That really put the fear of God into them. So they partied a lot, and after college Bush went into the air national guard with help from his father. A trick one of his own friends says he wished he could have duplicated.
Think about this: many of the liberals that are supporting Kerry from that era dodged the war altogether, so bush should fit right in.
At least bush didn't go to war and then denounce it as well as the people he went to war with.
He also never had secret meetings with known communist leaders..but that's a different story..
If Kerry gets in, and the U.S goes to shit, im going to laugh..because it will serve the american public right..for believing people like Ashton Kucher and Puff Daddy.
on another interesting note: I notice Michael Moore is sitting with a video camera at his local voting booth, taping the things that are going wrong. If kerry does in fact get in, is he going to show that tape as evidence that maybe Kerry got in through falsified votes? I think not. I predict that he will only show it to the public if Bush gets in...probably in another "documentary".
I only care about US politics to the extent that it affects my country and for its entertainment value.
it is pretty entertaining..especially when a bunch of female bush protestors decide to show their breasts for all to see ("weapons of ass destruction").
actually..that would be a great name for a porno..
Whereas in an odd way, I want to see Bush re-elected, because it'd be the last time for the next hundred years that the Republicans would control the White House
Terrorists don't hate us for our "freedom", they hate us for our "attitude problems". If I treated the people around me with this same attitude, I would have zero friends toot sweet. But hey, this is slashdot, you probably wouldn't know anything about those mythical "friends" things
Terrorists, at least the ones from the middle east, hate us for only one reason: most of us are christian. Our attitude Does not matter. It's a relgious war that will most likely never end, whether we have a democrat or a republican as president.
As for the rest of the world, many people hate us based on stereotypes, which just don't apply to everyone.
and just a side note: When I hear that people outside the U.S. believe the propaganda that is being spewed from Michael Moore's movies...it really makes me question their intelligence.
I would actually like to see Kerry get into office, so when the country goes to complete shit, and we get attacked again, I can tell all the liberals that I see that it's their fault.
But it never happens that way. When a democrat is in office, he can do no wrong. I mean look at former president Clinton. He not only gave up the chance to assassinate Bin Laden (which may have stopped 9/11), but he lied on the stand (and should have gone to Prison).
Sadly, the world is affected greatly by who becomes the next US president. Some people outside of the US might even be affected more than some in the US (like those in Iraq).
it's true. If kerry gets re-elected, they can say goodbye to any idea of freedom they once had. After all, Sadaam hussein didn't do anything wrong..did he?
It means the internet, our internet, can go back to what it was before the companies started fucking it up; a medium for free information exchange
The fact that you can make money on the Internet is why it's so popular today. Before the Internet was commericalized, it was just a bunch of universities on low-speed connections. I don't want that..do you?
Every Windows user I know has a copy of Kazaa which they use to acquire music. Every Mac user I know uses the iTunes Music Store (and somewhat fanatically, too!)
Now keep in mind, we're on a college campus Mr. Ballmer, so yes, we don't count
Itunes may not have the traditional p2p music sharing features, but I don't think the majority of the Mac users are using iTunes because of the store. Itunes allows you to share music with anyone on your local network. At a college campus, the number of files you have access to rivals a reglular p2p app. I know, because this is why so many people use iTunes on my college campus.
You are also forgetting one thing: college kids are cheap. Most would rather spend a dollar on food or beer than an Mp3.
He will still be elected, cause US citizens are nothing but sheeps
The U.S citizens are sheep but not when it comes to George Bush.
Michael Moore's movie Faranheit 9/11 is nothing but propaganda. There are countless examples where he has taken clips from one interview and led the viewers to believe it was from another..just to make his point.
People still believe it, howevever. There are still Michael Moore rallies where he spouts the same old rhetoric..and people believe it. This is what scares me about this country.
If M$ did not supply a patch for Windows 2000 for a known vulnerability, and they did for XP/Server 2003, would that be considred negligence in the eyes of a court of law? Could they be held at least partially responsible for damages?
Doing this would just be another frivolous lawsuit aimed at the deepest pockets.
after all, I redhat doesn't release patches anymore for version 2.0.
It isn't important that free software is cheap or even more or less secure then commercial software. The Freedom means freedom of ideas, knowledge, business. Anything that people desire.
Here is the problem. Free Software based on principal alone will not become popular enough to take over the market. Businesses and home users don't care about freedom of ideas or knowledge. The only thing free software has going for it is the price.
Im working on a project right now that involves a database. Im not using windows for the following reason: the licensing fees.
Re:The Conspiracy That There Are No Conspiracies
on
Roswell Declassified
·
· Score: 1
If I told you, a rock came through the window, what conclusions could you draw with Occam's Razor? More to the point, how many conclusions?
I would tell you that someone must have thrown it..because it didn't get there by itself!
I don't think "modifying" windows is the key here. If we had the source to windows, we would be able to do things like finally making linux nearly 100% compatible with windows. Think about a version of linux with the ability to use existing windows drivers. Compatibility is one of the many barriers to entry in the OS playing field.
Don't all punk bands start off 'sticking it to the man' and end up getting huge and becoming just another cog in the machine? I'm thinking Green Day in particular (no offense to GD fans), but there's countless other bands who've sold their soul after making it big being a local band sticking it to the man.
it's no that they "sold their soul", it's more like they grew up. When you have a family ie. wife (gasp!),kids. Getting paid and treated like shit at local clubs just won't do. Artists want something that they know will last, and will support their families.
I've seen children picking up knives and attacking their parents if they don't get them that stuff, and these children can't take Ritilin before the age of 5 so the Parents just have to withstand that behaviour. This is because a cartoon creates a reality within children's minds, and any advertisement becomes "reality" as a child cannot make a Capitalist judegement call ie. is it worth the money?
I hope you don't have kids....
The problem isn't the cartoons, it's the parents that decicde to babysit their kids with cartoons. If you just spent a little time teaching them the difference between right and wrong, you wouldn't have kids running around trying to "kill their parents with a knife".
Free means, free to see how its made, free to use the source, free as in speech.
Free doesn't mean 'free' because had you read the goddamn article, you'd have read how RMS isn't opposed to charging for software.
God almighty. I don't think you were a troll, but I forgive the moderators for not having the "-1, Trite, glib, illinformed" mod option available.
what you fail to understand, is that "free", in the software sense, means beer and speech. If company X decides to release a piece of software under the GPL, and sell the binaries, he must also give the source away for free. What stops someone from re-releasing the binaries for free (as in beer)? nothing.
So in conclusion, yes, you can sell GPLd software, but it's pretty much useless from a profit standpoint.
Re:How exactly would Linux handle 5000 developers?
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
There's little need to 'manage' a team that is developing a subsystem. No charts and graphs and timelines to slavishly adhere to. No danger that you'll come in in the morning and discover that your latest revision (the one with the bug) was declared 'released' and burned to CD.
That is also the reason why 90% of the software projects on sourceforge.net are spaghetti-coded pieces of garbage or non-existant. The actual successfull open source projects are managed properly, with a small to mid-sized team.
Slashdot Mirror
free software is software you can use/sell/modify/kludge/hack/whatever without obligation
tell that to the people that are sued by the FSF for violating the GPL.
Some developers don't want their code taken and "locked" away in some proprietary app, while others don't care. I happen to go along with the GPL camp for the most part. If I give my time and effort to a community project, I don't want someone to be able to take that effort away and not have to give back to that community. Note that the GPL and people who believe in the GPL don't care about profits. If you can take a GPL app (like MySQL) and make money, so be it. Just don't try to take the code away.
.exe without compensation (money).
The original code is never taken away, so I really don't see the problem here. Example: person 1 creates code X and releases under the GPL. Person 2 uses person 1's code in their own project, adds a few things, and doesn't release the source code.
Person 1's source code is still available to the public.
In the same sense that you do not want people to "lock up your source code" without compensation (credit), closed source developers do not want you to share the
Just something to think about
this is true. I personally use firefox due to all the security issues with IE.
They explain in their documentation/FAQ why the violations are important to protect against. If just anyone were to grab the source, use it and then close it, then you're just doing free programming and their taking credit for YOUR work.
You may as well offer to be a programmer to any random company for free and sign an NDA as well.
I don't enjoy feeding the trolls, but I will anyway. As I said in my previous post, this is not freedom. This is an organization (the FSF) attempting to force their propaganda on everyone else. If you are going to release your source with restrictions, it's fine, but don't pass it off as freedom.
Perhaps you've been asleep when every other software package releases updates/bug-fixes/security patched.
Apache: 85% of the internet can't be wrong.
Please sir, dismount yourself from that high horse you are riding on.
this doesn' mean anything. Otherwise, this would also be true:
Internet Explorer: 95% of the internet can't be wrong.
It's even worse when groups like the FSF go after people for GNU "violations". If The GNU was truly free, it would be in the public domain available to anyone that wanted to use it. After all, if a business decides to use source code released under the GNU, the original source code is still free.
Additions are the only thing kept hidden (which in my opinion, should allowed to be kept hidden, if a person chooses).
And "miserable failure" returns the biography of George W. Bush
or the website of the democratic national convention
Second, the GPLed code is available for no cost already, so there's no money-saving incentive to break the GPL. Instead, those who purposely violate the GPL are causing something to be less free, while collecting money for it. Also, passing off someone else's work as your own is an additional moral infraction, beyond just re-distribution
less free? how so?
Let's say I release source code under the GPL license. If a company decides to use it in their commerical application, the only code that isn't "free" is the code the company has created. The original code is still just as free. Therefore, I don't really see a problem.
and so what if they make money off of it...a person releasing it under the GPL doesn't expect to make any money anyway.
Bush and his crew were partying hard enough to make John Belushi blush. One of his friends pulled a stunt that got him kicked out of Yale, was forced to go to Vietnam and he died. That really put the fear of God into them. So they partied a lot, and after college Bush went into the air national guard with help from his father. A trick one of his own friends says he wished he could have duplicated.
Think about this: many of the liberals that are supporting Kerry from that era dodged the war altogether, so bush should fit right in.
At least bush didn't go to war and then denounce it as well as the people he went to war with.
He also never had secret meetings with known communist leaders..but that's a different story..
If Kerry gets in, and the U.S goes to shit, im going to laugh..because it will serve the american public right..for believing people like Ashton Kucher and Puff Daddy.
on another interesting note: I notice Michael Moore is sitting with a video camera at his local voting booth, taping the things that are going wrong. If kerry does in fact get in, is he going to show that tape as evidence that maybe Kerry got in through falsified votes? I think not. I predict that he will only show it to the public if Bush gets in...probably in another "documentary".
I only care about US politics to the extent that it affects my country and for its entertainment value.
it is pretty entertaining..especially when a bunch of female bush protestors decide to show their breasts for all to see ("weapons of ass destruction").
actually..that would be a great name for a porno..
Whereas in an odd way, I want to see Bush re-elected, because it'd be the last time for the next hundred years that the Republicans would control the White House
That's all you have to say?
Terrorists don't hate us for our "freedom", they hate us for our "attitude problems". If I treated the people around me with this same attitude, I would have zero friends toot sweet. But hey, this is slashdot, you probably wouldn't know anything about those mythical "friends" things
Terrorists, at least the ones from the middle east, hate us for only one reason: most of us are christian. Our attitude Does not matter. It's a relgious war that will most likely never end, whether we have a democrat or a republican as president.
As for the rest of the world, many people hate us based on stereotypes, which just don't apply to everyone.
and just a side note: When I hear that people outside the U.S. believe the propaganda that is being spewed from Michael Moore's movies...it really makes me question their intelligence.
I would actually like to see Kerry get into office, so when the country goes to complete shit, and we get attacked again, I can tell all the liberals that I see that it's their fault.
But it never happens that way. When a democrat is in office, he can do no wrong. I mean look at former president Clinton. He not only gave up the chance to assassinate Bin Laden (which may have stopped 9/11), but he lied on the stand (and should have gone to Prison).
Sadly, the world is affected greatly by who becomes the next US president. Some people outside of the US might even be affected more than some in the US (like those in Iraq).
it's true. If kerry gets re-elected, they can say goodbye to any idea of freedom they once had. After all, Sadaam hussein didn't do anything wrong..did he?
It means the internet, our internet, can go back to what it was before the companies started fucking it up; a medium for free information exchange
The fact that you can make money on the Internet is why it's so popular today. Before the Internet was commericalized, it was just a bunch of universities on low-speed connections. I don't want that..do you?
Every Windows user I know has a copy of Kazaa which they use to acquire music. Every Mac user I know uses the iTunes Music Store (and somewhat fanatically, too!)
Now keep in mind, we're on a college campus Mr. Ballmer, so yes, we don't count
Itunes may not have the traditional p2p music sharing features, but I don't think the majority of the Mac users are using iTunes because of the store. Itunes allows you to share music with anyone on your local network. At a college campus, the number of files you have access to rivals a reglular p2p app. I know, because this is why so many people use iTunes on my college campus.
You are also forgetting one thing: college kids are cheap. Most would rather spend a dollar on food or beer than an Mp3.
He will still be elected, cause US citizens are nothing but sheeps
The U.S citizens are sheep but not when it comes to George Bush.
Michael Moore's movie Faranheit 9/11 is nothing but propaganda. There are countless examples where he has taken clips from one interview and led the viewers to believe it was from another..just to make his point.
People still believe it, howevever. There are still Michael Moore rallies where he spouts the same old rhetoric..and people believe it. This is what scares me about this country.
If M$ did not supply a patch for Windows 2000 for a known vulnerability, and they did for XP/Server 2003, would that be considred negligence in the eyes of a court of law? Could they be held at least partially responsible for damages?
Doing this would just be another frivolous lawsuit aimed at the deepest pockets.
after all, I redhat doesn't release patches anymore for version 2.0.
The reason IE is so insecure is the fact that Microsoft was levraging it's monopoly
no, it's insecure because microsoft disbanned the IE team, because they were afraid it would become an application platform.
It isn't important that free software is cheap or even more or less secure then commercial software. The Freedom means freedom of ideas, knowledge, business. Anything that people desire.
Here is the problem. Free Software based on principal alone will not become popular enough to take over the market. Businesses and home users don't care about freedom of ideas or knowledge. The only thing free software has going for it is the price.
Im working on a project right now that involves a database. Im not using windows for the following reason: the licensing fees.
If I told you, a rock came through the window, what conclusions could you draw with Occam's Razor? More to the point, how many conclusions?
I would tell you that someone must have thrown it..because it didn't get there by itself!
Who would want to modify windows?
I don't think "modifying" windows is the key here. If we had the source to windows, we would be able to do things like finally making linux nearly 100% compatible with windows. Think about a version of linux with the ability to use existing windows drivers. Compatibility is one of the many barriers to entry in the OS playing field.
Don't all punk bands start off 'sticking it to the man' and end up getting huge and becoming just another cog in the machine? I'm thinking Green Day in particular (no offense to GD fans), but there's countless other bands who've sold their soul after making it big being a local band sticking it to the man.
it's no that they "sold their soul", it's more like they grew up. When you have a family ie. wife (gasp!),kids. Getting paid and treated like shit at local clubs just won't do. Artists want something that they know will last, and will support their families.
I've seen children picking up knives and attacking their parents if they don't get them that stuff, and these children can't take Ritilin before the age of 5 so the Parents just have to withstand that behaviour. This is because a cartoon creates a reality within children's minds, and any advertisement becomes "reality" as a child cannot make a Capitalist judegement call ie. is it worth the money?
I hope you don't have kids....
The problem isn't the cartoons, it's the parents that decicde to babysit their kids with cartoons. If you just spent a little time teaching them the difference between right and wrong, you wouldn't have kids running around trying to "kill their parents with a knife".
For the 1 hundredth BILLION TIME:
Free means, free to see how its made, free to use the source, free as in speech.
Free doesn't mean 'free' because had you read the goddamn article, you'd have read how RMS isn't opposed to charging for software.
God almighty. I don't think you were a troll, but I forgive the moderators for not having the "-1, Trite, glib, illinformed" mod option available.
what you fail to understand, is that "free", in the software sense, means beer and speech. If company X decides to release a piece of software under the GPL, and sell the binaries, he must also give the source away for free. What stops someone from re-releasing the binaries for free (as in beer)? nothing.
So in conclusion, yes, you can sell GPLd software, but it's pretty much useless from a profit standpoint.
There's little need to 'manage' a team that is developing a subsystem. No charts and graphs and timelines to slavishly adhere to. No danger that you'll come in in the morning and discover that your latest revision (the one with the bug) was declared 'released' and burned to CD.
That is also the reason why 90% of the software projects on sourceforge.net are spaghetti-coded pieces of garbage or non-existant. The actual successfull open source projects are managed properly, with a small to mid-sized team.