Corruption. Under GNU there is no way for anyone to be corrupt, because nobody has more power than anyone else. If some author or licensor or whatever suddenly decided to freeze a GNU product and sell it as a prioprietary item, they would still have no way to stop other members of the community giving it away
Sound GREAT. As an author, I become an equal with the people using my code, when released under the GPL.
Once again, write your own code, I have contibuted to GPL and NON GPL projects, I have had my code stripped and moved to proprietary products. Im not game here, if you want it to be yours, write it yourself, I no longer submit code to any BSD project, just for this reason, this goes to my second point to the letter.
Many people loathe commercial licenses, simply because they "don't give you the freedom to do what you want" IE: copy the code as many times as you want, install it on every machine in my house, while only paying for one.
It sounds like you are doing the EXACT same thing a commerical license does, which is controlling the usage of your source code after its release.
Isn't the GPL all about Freedom?
if it is, then I SHOULD be able to take code released under the GPL, and use it any way I wish.
Unfortunatly, the only license that offers me true freedom is public domain, which is my entire point to this post.
The free Battle.net implementation was entirely compatible, backwards and forwards, with Blizzard's
Although it could put blizzard out of business. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's free.
What im trying to explain to you that in its own sense, what open source does IS embrace and extend (otherwise why not just create your own protocols, rather than try to steal someone else's) it jusr involves ideals on the opposite end of the spectrum.
remember, it's difficult to compete with someone who illegally abuses their monopoly power. antitrust laws are what keep mcdonalds from giving away food for 6 months to drive burger king out of business. M$ was found to have violated those laws. it's always difficult to beat someone who's not playing by the rules
I see it posted almost in almost every article related to commerical software on slashdot: "but is it free"? of course this means speech, but more often than not it means beer.
Either way, OpenSource as a whole does the exact same thing that micsrosoft does to drive out its competitors:
Embrace and extend.
open source projects many times take a proprietary product or protocol (embrace): think blizzard server, and make it "free" (extend).
Should it be any more alright for it to be done by an OSS project than a commerical entity? I say no. (they should play by the same RULES)
The hacker world would rather beat more simple targets like Windows than go for something complicated like SSH on Linux
not true. Hackers go for all Opersting Systems and all flavors. People who write worms only aim at one. Here is why:
why infect 1% of the worlds computer population, when you can infect 99? (if linux was as popular as windows, there would be just as many worms created for it.) Also, most people of the hacker world hate microsoft.
with the latest php scare, I wouldn't be surprised of someone wrote a worm....
Instead, just share it with your buddies so we won't know what hit us
I think full disclosure of a flaw should only be given to the person that is going to fix it. Why does anyone else really need it (if not for malicious intent).
I don't think full disclosure is really important in this process; instead, open source is what makes it possible to find bugs early. In fact, open source implies full disclosure-- without bugtraq or whatever, you can imagine downloading each new version of SSH and looking at diffs to deduce what bugs got fixed
This only works to a point. If this was a successful approach, a bug in OpenSSH and or PHP would have been found months ago.
It seems to me to takes just as long as proprietary models.
You do not know what you are talking about. Full disclosure has greatly improved security awareness and turn around time for fixes. If you want to turn your back on full disclosure, you are heading back into the middle-ages of computer security.
Full disclosure is a good thing (from the patch aspect), however, it is the sole reason for the large amount of script kiddies on the internet today.
It also decreases joe computer user X's security. (the one that never patches his system, and believe me there are a lot).
I remember OpenSSH having a remote exploit within the last couple of years, so that statement on there site is a lie.
I want to sound like a troll here, but I thought the benefit of Open Source Software was that there are "hundreds of eyes checking the code for bugs" and the ability for "anyone to fix a security flaw".
If im going to have the same amount of bugs in it that a closed source project has, what's the point? (besides ideals).
BTW. Another firm example of this is PHP (which slashdot has neglected to even cover). A remote exploit in all previous versions that allows anyone to execute code on an affected system. Something as bad as code red could easily start propagating through peoples' systems.
They did not even contact the developers of Gnucleus before they ripped off their software. And they ban anyone from the Music City chat room who even mentions the existence of Gnucleus
Why Should they?
They offer the source for download (the URL escapes me).
Open source is just that. Do as you wish, as long as you re-release your modifications.
Now Morpehsu is going to try and make money off of Gnutella. Well, here's a pretty pickle. Does the Gnutella network want a for-profit service in there, attracting the ire of the MPAA and their bought politicians (and judges who, lest we forget, have an eye on promotion to the Supremes, and can tell which way the political winds are shifting)? I doubt it. Can Gnutella do anything about it? Of course not. They can't pull a Kazaa and block Morpheus, either by force majeur or through obscurity.
unfortunatly, the gnutella network has been supported by commercial companies all along.
Look at who runs the largest cache servers:
first it was limewire, now it is bearshare (who I might add is going to pull a kazaa very soon. the latest is that version 2.0 will only share with other bearshare clients + have "super nodes")
Before any of the main cacheservers were up, gnutella was dead. (this was about a year and a half ago).
The one problem with an open standard p2p network is that anyone can build a client. You might think this is a good thing but consider the fact that many clients may not search properly, could spew bad data, or drop file requests. With kazaa, there was no problems like this, making it a very fast and very efficient system (better than gnutella and napster in its hayday).
I suggest that we attack the problem at the core, not from the outside. We should be allowing the RIAA and the MPAA into everything they want access to. Let them think they have control. Get the distribution system online. Get people to start downloading things from it. Then strip it away from them like the children they're acting like. Shut them out of the network like Kaaza just did with Morpheus. Get access to everything then shut them out.
I agree with the fact that something needs to be done...but not like this. The MPAA/RIAA have rights too. They own the IP that you would like to "strip away from them". They can act like children all they want, it's their property.
If you don't like the way they are acting, boycott them! Unfortunatly, most people enjoy their music and movies too much, and would just rather download them for free.
You would think that Morpheus is something hackers like, being a gateway to all kinds of illicit things. Instead, they are doing the equivalent of vandalizing their own house. Stupid kids.
it wasn't "kids" at all. The "virus" was kazaa taking back their revenue stream through a propagating back door.
Was that an experiment to find the tensile strength of argumentation? I think you've stretched that claim far enough to break it. Having closed source code is status? Hang on a sec, I need to reattach my ass. You just made me laugh it off with THAT absurd claim. Forcing equality? My ass. Anyone who redistributes GPL'd code has made a knowing decision to do so, and complaining about giving access to the source to their modifications is exactly the same as whining about having to pay for a cab ride. Sounds to me like you GPL-whiners are the "communists" around here, you keep complaining because you can't get your free ride out of GPL'd code.
if 90% of the OSS community weren't so zealous about destroying proprietary code (including stallman), I might believe you.
Even the philosophy of gnu.org talks about how it is a "right" to receive source code. Kinda like software and music piracy.........
Birds of a feather........
If I really wanted to get my "free ride" out of gnu'd code, I would. After all, how would you know?
3. The GPL could far more easily be describes as a capitalistic quid pro quo, in that the original author is granting access to his work in exchange for access to any modifications or additions
Tell that to loki, and the many other companies that tried to make a living from Open Source.
Stop lying
Stop trying to fool yourself.
2. The GPL does not take away ownership; this claim is only made by Microsoft astroturfers, trolls, and the pitiful fools stupid enough to believe them. The original author retains copyright over his work, and can do with it as he likes. The GPL simply grants others access to his work, within restrictions. If the GPL actually did take away copyright, it could not be enforced
communism doesn't take away ownership either. It gives ownersip to all.
taken from the actual GNU public license page on gnu.org
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Also, they say bandwidth doesn't grow on trees, but we have to pay for our bandwidth. I pay $40 now for a cable modem, should I then have to pay for each site I go to?
You obviouly have no concept of bandwidth, or seem to think slashdot runs off of a cable modem. (if they did, I couldn't see a reason for a subscription based service). Unfortunately, bandwidth right now costs a shitload of money. (especially on a dedicated line high-speed line).
I would imagine the parent company of slashdot is paying in upwards of $10,000 per month to run slashdot. The ads obviously don't cover it. (like advertising on a p2p app. Since the community is filled with 90% leechers, the revenue just isn't there).
I thought the definition of communism was good enough, but it seems a moron like you needs further explaining, so here it is:
once again, recall the definition:
communism>:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Recall the OSS/Linux movement ideals:
1) Many programmers from all over the world cobble togethor the operating system as a whole. No one entity owns it all. ("for the good of all members")
2) The gnu effectively makes it so the software stamped with its license has no owner. (everyone who uses it is in a sense, equal). Is this starting to sound familiar yet?
Whether (in your mind) it's right or wrong, it really is the start of online communism.
Stallman (and many other expressed zealouts on slashdot), would love to see the world as a communist or a socialist state. Not only could they be able to work on OSS all day, But they wouldn't have to worry about silly things they are "slaves" to, such as: car,house,medical payments.
I quickly discovered though, that in many cases, not all the players in the field of computer software were equal. By the time I entered the field, large companies like Microsoft tended to control much of the technology. And, that technology was available to me under licensing agreements that forbid me to study and learn from it. I was completely prohibited from viewing the program source code of the software.
Part of the philosphy of the GNU. To prevent anyone from becoming a higher "status" than another (IE. Have source code they do not want to give out), equality is forced.
J: On the charge of believing that proof-by-dictionary is in any way conclusive, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of believing that a one-sentence dictionary definition is a substantive definition of a complex socio-economic philosophy, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of quoting a dictionary definition without providing any evidence of how it relates to Open Source and believing that this is proof that Open Source is a communistic philosophy, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of believing numbers pulled out of his ass prove his point in any way, shape, or form, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of red-baiting by accusations of communism without the sligtest substantial evidence, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of speaking about things about which he does not have the slightest clue, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of being a lying redbaiting useless illiterate troll, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of being too stupid to live, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: Will the defendant, kz45, please rise?
*the whining, whimpering troll is dragged to his feet*
J: kz45, you have been found guilty on all charges. You are hereby sentenced to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up until such time as the following conditions have been met:
You have taken and passed sufficient English classes to allow you to write at a level above that of the third grade.
You have learned the rudiments of logical discussion, and understand what constitutes proof of your claims.
You have researched communistic socioeconomic theories from sources other than Rush Limbaugh and CNN to a degree that you can actually discuss them intelligently rather than making unsupported bullshit declarations.
You stop lying.
You stop whining about having your illiterate unsupported trolls being moderated down.
The truth is right in front of your face, and you can't even see it.
The fact that you can't see the parallels between communism, and the GPL/open source movement baffles me.
Slashdot Mirror
Corruption. Under GNU there is no way for anyone to be corrupt, because nobody has more power than anyone else. If some author or licensor or whatever suddenly decided to freeze a GNU product and sell it as a prioprietary item, they would still have no way to stop other members of the community giving it away
Sound GREAT. As an author, I become an equal with the people using my code, when released under the GPL.
Open source software has created far more jobs than it took
That's like saying: automating factories has created more jobs (the people that create and design the robots).
I think most importantly people are completey missing the spirit of the liscence
I think you should try going to http://www.gnu.org, and counting the number of times you see the word "free"........
Once again, write your own code, I have contibuted to GPL and NON GPL projects, I have had my code stripped and moved to proprietary products. Im not game here, if you want it to be yours, write it yourself, I no longer submit code to any BSD project, just for this reason, this goes to my second point to the letter.
Many people loathe commercial licenses, simply because they "don't give you the freedom to do what you want" IE: copy the code as many times as you want, install it on every machine in my house, while only paying for one.
It sounds like you are doing the EXACT same thing a commerical license does, which is controlling the usage of your source code after its release.
Isn't the GPL all about Freedom?
if it is, then I SHOULD be able to take code released under the GPL, and use it any way I wish.
Unfortunatly, the only license that offers me true freedom is public domain, which is my entire point to this post.
Instead, strangely the printing press hasn't put hundreds of thousands of writers out of work, whose books I can pick up at the corner store for $9.95
if copying an entire book was as easy as "point and click, much like software", I can bet you wouldn't be buying them for $9.95 in the store....
The free Battle.net implementation was entirely compatible, backwards and forwards, with Blizzard's
Although it could put blizzard out of business. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's free.
What im trying to explain to you that in its own sense, what open source does IS embrace and extend (otherwise why not just create your own protocols, rather than try to steal someone else's) it jusr involves ideals on the opposite end of the spectrum.
remember, it's difficult to compete with someone who illegally abuses their monopoly power. antitrust laws are what keep mcdonalds from giving away food for 6 months to drive burger king out of business. M$ was found to have violated those laws. it's always difficult to beat someone who's not playing by the rules
I see it posted almost in almost every article related to commerical software on slashdot: "but is it free"? of course this means speech, but more often than not it means beer.
Either way, OpenSource as a whole does the exact same thing that micsrosoft does to drive out its competitors:
Embrace and extend.
open source projects many times take a proprietary product or protocol (embrace): think blizzard server, and make it "free" (extend).
Should it be any more alright for it to be done by an OSS project than a commerical entity? I say no. (they should play by the same RULES)
So you're just going to trust that they fixed it?
They wrote it. If im using it, I have already given them a certain amount of trust.
The hacker world would rather beat more simple targets like Windows than go for something complicated like SSH on Linux
not true. Hackers go for all Opersting Systems and all flavors. People who write worms only aim at one. Here is why:
why infect 1% of the worlds computer population, when you can infect 99? (if linux was as popular as windows, there would be just as many worms created for it.) Also, most people of the hacker world hate microsoft.
with the latest php scare, I wouldn't be surprised of someone wrote a worm....
Instead, just share it with your buddies so we won't know what hit us
I think full disclosure of a flaw should only be given to the person that is going to fix it. Why does anyone else really need it (if not for malicious intent).
I don't think full disclosure is really important in this process; instead, open source is what makes it possible to find bugs early. In fact, open source implies full disclosure-- without bugtraq or whatever, you can imagine downloading each new version of SSH and looking at diffs to deduce what bugs got fixed
This only works to a point. If this was a successful approach, a bug in OpenSSH and or PHP would have been found months ago.
It seems to me to takes just as long as proprietary models.
You do not know what you are talking about. Full disclosure has greatly improved security awareness and turn around time for fixes. If you want to turn your back on full disclosure, you are heading back into the middle-ages of computer security.
Full disclosure is a good thing (from the patch aspect), however, it is the sole reason for the large amount of script kiddies on the internet today.
It also decreases joe computer user X's security. (the one that never patches his system, and believe me there are a lot).
I remember OpenSSH having a remote exploit within the last couple of years, so that statement on there site is a lie.
I want to sound like a troll here, but I thought the benefit of Open Source Software was that there are "hundreds of eyes checking the code for bugs" and the ability for "anyone to fix a security flaw".
If im going to have the same amount of bugs in it that a closed source project has, what's the point? (besides ideals).
BTW. Another firm example of this is PHP (which slashdot has neglected to even cover). A remote exploit in all previous versions that allows anyone to execute code on an affected system. Something as bad as code red could easily start propagating through peoples' systems.
They did not even contact the developers of Gnucleus before they ripped off their software. And they ban anyone from the Music City chat room who even mentions the existence of Gnucleus
Why Should they?
They offer the source for download (the URL escapes me).
Open source is just that. Do as you wish, as long as you re-release your modifications.
Now Morpehsu is going to try and make money off of Gnutella. Well, here's a pretty pickle. Does the Gnutella network want a for-profit service in there, attracting the ire of the MPAA and their bought politicians (and judges who, lest we forget, have an eye on promotion to the Supremes, and can tell which way the political winds are shifting)? I doubt it. Can Gnutella do anything about it? Of course not. They can't pull a Kazaa and block Morpheus, either by force majeur or through obscurity.
unfortunatly, the gnutella network has been supported by commercial companies all along.
Look at who runs the largest cache servers:
first it was limewire, now it is bearshare (who I might add is going to pull a kazaa very soon. the latest is that version 2.0 will only share with other bearshare clients + have "super nodes")
Before any of the main cacheservers were up, gnutella was dead. (this was about a year and a half ago).
The one problem with an open standard p2p network is that anyone can build a client. You might think this is a good thing but consider the fact that many clients may not search properly, could spew bad data, or drop file requests. With kazaa, there was no problems like this, making it a very fast and very efficient system (better than gnutella and napster in its hayday).
Just my 2 cents
I suggest that we attack the problem at the core, not from the outside. We should be allowing the RIAA and the MPAA into everything they want access to. Let them think they have control. Get the distribution system online. Get people to start downloading things from it. Then strip it away from them like the children they're acting like. Shut them out of the network like Kaaza just did with Morpheus. Get access to everything then shut them out.
I agree with the fact that something needs to be done...but not like this. The MPAA/RIAA have rights too. They own the IP that you would like to "strip away from them". They can act like children all they want, it's their property.
If you don't like the way they are acting, boycott them! Unfortunatly, most people enjoy their music and movies too much, and would just rather download them for free.
Gnutella is non-proprietary. That's it.
This doesn't make it better (for p2p) it actually makes it worse. Here is why:
When a client is proprietary, there aren't usually 20 different clients mucking up the network (IE: sending wrong requests, not searching properly).
Those are the breaks with proprietary, closed-source crap
A little off topic, but open source != better security. take a look
Since you mentioned it... here's Clean LimeWire [geocities.com] Limewire without Spyware
Filenavigator is better.
1) never had any spyware to begin with
2) searches the gnutella network
3) searches its own p2p network
4) fast/many search results
You would think that Morpheus is something hackers like, being a gateway to all kinds of illicit things. Instead, they are doing the equivalent of vandalizing their own house. Stupid kids.
it wasn't "kids" at all. The "virus" was kazaa taking back their revenue stream through a propagating back door.
Not sure. Could I be prosecuted for breaking into servers in Korea? If I can't there is a problem.
How is an open mail relay, considered "breaking in"?
Was that an experiment to find the tensile strength of argumentation? I think you've stretched that claim far enough to break it. Having closed source code is status? Hang on a sec, I need to reattach my ass. You just made me laugh it off with THAT absurd claim. Forcing equality? My ass. Anyone who redistributes GPL'd code has made a knowing decision to do so, and complaining about giving access to the source to their modifications is exactly the same as whining about having to pay for a cab ride. Sounds to me like you GPL-whiners are the "communists" around here, you keep complaining because you can't get your free ride out of GPL'd code.
if 90% of the OSS community weren't so zealous about destroying proprietary code (including stallman), I might believe you.
Even the philosophy of gnu.org talks about how it is a "right" to receive source code. Kinda like software and music piracy.........
Birds of a feather........
If I really wanted to get my "free ride" out of gnu'd code, I would. After all, how would you know?
3. The GPL could far more easily be describes as a capitalistic quid pro quo, in that the original author is granting access to his work in exchange for access to any modifications or additions
Tell that to loki, and the many other companies that tried to make a living from Open Source.
Stop lying
Stop trying to fool yourself.
2. The GPL does not take away ownership; this claim is only made by Microsoft astroturfers, trolls, and the pitiful fools stupid enough to believe them. The original author retains copyright over his work, and can do with it as he likes. The GPL simply grants others access to his work, within restrictions. If the GPL actually did take away copyright, it could not be enforced
communism doesn't take away ownership either. It gives ownersip to all.
taken from the actual GNU public license page on gnu.org
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
Also, they say bandwidth doesn't grow on trees, but we have to pay for our bandwidth. I pay $40 now for a cable modem, should I then have to pay for each site I go to?
You obviouly have no concept of bandwidth, or seem to think slashdot runs off of a cable modem. (if they did, I couldn't see a reason for a subscription based service). Unfortunately, bandwidth right now costs a shitload of money. (especially on a dedicated line high-speed line).
I would imagine the parent company of slashdot is paying in upwards of $10,000 per month to run slashdot. The ads obviously don't cover it. (like advertising on a p2p app. Since the community is filled with 90% leechers, the revenue just isn't there).
I thought the definition of communism was good enough, but it seems a moron like you needs further explaining, so here it is:
:
h tml
once again, recall the definition:
communism>
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Recall the OSS/Linux movement ideals:
1) Many programmers from all over the world cobble togethor the operating system as a whole. No one entity owns it all. ("for the good of all members")
2) The gnu effectively makes it so the software stamped with its license has no owner. (everyone who uses it is in a sense, equal). Is this starting to sound familiar yet?
Whether (in your mind) it's right or wrong, it really is the start of online communism.
Stallman (and many other expressed zealouts on slashdot), would love to see the world as a communist or a socialist state. Not only could they be able to work on OSS all day, But they wouldn't have to worry about silly things they are "slaves" to, such as: car,house,medical payments.
excerpt from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-dream.
I quickly discovered though, that in many cases, not all the players in the field of computer software were equal. By the time I entered the field, large companies like Microsoft tended to control much of the technology. And, that technology was available to me under licensing agreements that forbid me to study and learn from it. I was completely prohibited from viewing the program source code of the software.
Part of the philosphy of the GNU. To prevent anyone from becoming a higher "status" than another (IE. Have source code they do not want to give out), equality is forced.
Judge: Has the jury reached its verdict?
Jury foreman: We have, your honor.
J: On the charge of believing that proof-by-dictionary is in any way conclusive, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of believing that a one-sentence dictionary definition is a substantive definition of a complex socio-economic philosophy, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of quoting a dictionary definition without providing any evidence of how it relates to Open Source and believing that this is proof that Open Source is a communistic philosophy, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of believing numbers pulled out of his ass prove his point in any way, shape, or form, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of red-baiting by accusations of communism without the sligtest substantial evidence, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of speaking about things about which he does not have the slightest clue, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of being a lying redbaiting useless illiterate troll, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: On the charge of being too stupid to live, how do you find the defendant, kz45?
JF: Guilty, your honor.
J: Will the defendant, kz45, please rise?
*the whining, whimpering troll is dragged to his feet*
J: kz45, you have been found guilty on all charges. You are hereby sentenced to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up until such time as the following conditions have been met:
You have taken and passed sufficient English classes to allow you to write at a level above that of the third grade.
You have learned the rudiments of logical discussion, and understand what constitutes proof of your claims.
You have researched communistic socioeconomic theories from sources other than Rush Limbaugh and CNN to a degree that you can actually discuss them intelligently rather than making unsupported bullshit declarations.
You stop lying.
You stop whining about having your illiterate unsupported trolls being moderated down.
The truth is right in front of your face, and you can't even see it.
The fact that you can't see the parallels between communism, and the GPL/open source movement baffles me.
kids......