Remember, OSS is a *gift* to the world - the world can choose to snub it if it so desires. There will always be somebody with the proverbial itch to scratch. I for one, will continue using Linux (and helping its development in my own small way).
i see it as more of a "trojan horse". If it was ONLY a gift, why are som many people (in the OSS community) trying to rid the world of proprietary software (not excluding the leader: richard stallman)?
You couldn't possibly be more thick-skulled could you. You make up random numbers to make it look like you know what you're talking about and then claim that Open Source has something to do with communism--which it has absolutely none of whatsoever. Go crawl back in your hole.
heh.
Since you obviously have no idea what communism is or how it pertains to the OSS community, I have pasted the definition below:
communism (taken from dictionary.com)
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
I rest my case.
PS. I admit I did pull those numbers out of my ass...... but it was to prove a point (that you seemed to have missed).
I expect to see a response like... "communism really isn't that bad...just not implemented correctly"
Talk about missing the point! I bet you're an MBA aren't you? What part of "we don't need ANY proprietary software" did you not understand. That's right. No proprietary software. As in: Proprietary software is going the way of the dinosaur. Deal with it
what is the difference between proprietary software and Open source software to a company? Nothing.
here are some figures:
prop software: $1000 + $2000 per year. support OSS: $3000 per year
it's all the same to a company. Just money. The only people that care are the zealous programmers that would like to bring the ideals of a communist society, to the technology world.
The point is, smart programmers don't NEED the corporate "we" that you refer to a dozen times in your argument. That is the beauty of Open Source. You don't have to do everything yourself. Structure falls into place naturally. All you have to do is take what exists and extend it as people needs dictate. For that, those people WILL pay you if you offer a better total solution than proprietary competitors
Besides a stallman based software world, why should it matter what a company chooses. (isn't that called FREEDOM?). I know you probably don't understand this, but JUST BECAUSE A PIECE OF SOFTWARE IS OPEN SOURCED DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER!
You are limiting your viewpoint to assume that software is a product when in fact, it can also be a service. Open Source doesn't make money on licenses. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make money. If someone pays you to write Open Source software that they need (say you are a consultant, perhaps), then it doesn't matter if the software itself is free because it wouldn't exist without them paying you to create it. Additionally, you can provide them with support contracts, training, etc. Software itself is a small component of a total solution that clients need.
first of all, since you can get the source of all open source software for free, eventually companies won't need to hire you as a programmer.
second, if I wanted to do tech. support, I wouldn't be a programmer.
Seems to me that Nusphere is trying to greedily free-ride off the hard work of Open Source developers. Simply put: Nusphere doesn't get it. They are one of many who still mistakenly believe that proprietary software is the only way to make money. As such, I personally hope they get ripped to shreds in court and all their proprietary modifications get forcefully released to be freely assimilated into the GPL codebase as MySQL developers see fit.
you don't get it. Open source doesn't make money.
The problem is this: if you can get the source for free, why pay for it? (not the mention the fact that you can download one copy and redistribute it to everyone you know..legally).
show me an example of "open source" that makes money. (excluding all the distro companies).
FSF's policy with respect to GPL violations is to secure compliance, not damages. When a party has violated GPL, and the violation is called to our attention (which happens on the average some dozens of times each year), we inform the party in violation of its responsibilities, and advise it on the steps necessary to come into compliance. It is our practice that once a party has taken steps to comply, and has entered into confidence-building measures to ensure that future non-compliance will be avoided wherever possible, and rapidly discovered and remedied where inadvertently reproduced, distribution rights under GPL 4 are restored on a cooperative non-judicial basis. In this fashion, I have secured compliance with the license in dozens of cases over the past decade, and have never had to resort to judicial measures of mandatory enforcement. Without the leverage provided by 4, however, parties would resort to repetitive partial compliance, ``capable of repetition but evading review,'' in language the Supreme Court has applied to a different sort of situation, substantially if not overwhelmingly complicating the task of securing reliable compliance with the license
You call this more "free" than the copyright?
I sure as hell don't. It's just as bad as the RIAA going after copyright holders for sharing music.
If the GPL license was truly "Free", there would never be a court case, because you could do whatever you wanted with the source code. Unfortunatly, because of the vast restrictions instilled by our favorite chap richard Stallman, people are forced to give our their source code for free. (provided they have made an alteration to a Gnu'd work).
I am going to use the same argument that many have used in legitimizing music:
If someone is making money off of your sourcecode, why does it matter? It's not like your are losing money each time your code is used.
Why should the GPL be any less credible than any other software license out there? If it fails, it seems that there would be an implication that other restrictive licenses should fail as well (read: anti-reverse engineering clauses and the like).
Then maybe we will actually see the enterprise edition of sourceforge, instead of having to buy it for an un-godly amount of money. I thought if a piece of software was released under the GPL, we got to D/L the source?
I guess the people of slashdot are closer to the corporations of america than I thought......
But then again people who advocate BSD style licenses really want to get raped by big business, why else would they bend over and spread their anus crack in such a way?
It could have happened, even IF it was under the GPL. Look at sourceforge 3.0 enterprise edition, that the parent company of slashdot owns. You cannot download the source, and the price is "call for details". Kinda makes you wonder....
The only way for the artists to stand a chance against such an inbred monster as the MPAA or any largeish record label is for them to stand together, not have a bunch of disparate lawsuits that only create trivial damage at best. They need a knock out punch by flexing their collective muscles.
And how are they gonna do that?
Get rid of the artists, and release their music solely on the internet? It would be "shared" within a few days of release, but then I guess there would be no legitimate use for filesharing. (who would we be fucking over, THE ARTISTS?).
What you are forgetting is the fact that no matter how cruel and shitty a recording studio is, they provide things a person on their own could never afford. Such as: Promotion and studio time.
No matter what form music is in, there will almost always be a need for a recording studio.
It's been tied up in court for almost two years and my friend has almost gone under because of this. They can afford to hold out until my friend settles for pennies on the dollar.
good luck. Walmart has vast experience in this field. They are the #1 entity sued in the united states.
I'll never understand why MS does not make the source code available under alicense that forbids distribution of that code or derived code in any binary form or in any form that will self compile..... This way the linux folks can see what they need ot make wine work, and no one except MS can sell the binary version of the software that 90+% of the people will use
I don't see why microsft just doesn't assimilate linux. they have the money, expertise, and man power, and because it's free, there would be no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, OSS is a *gift* to the world - the world can choose to snub it if it so desires. There will always be somebody with the proverbial itch to scratch. I for one, will continue using Linux (and helping its development in my own small way).
i see it as more of a "trojan horse". If it was ONLY a gift, why are som many people (in the OSS community) trying to rid the world of proprietary software (not excluding the leader: richard stallman)?
why should a commercial software creator be any more liable than an OSS one???
You couldn't possibly be more thick-skulled could you. You make up random numbers to make it look like you know what you're talking about and then claim that Open Source has something to do with communism--which it has absolutely none of whatsoever. Go crawl back in your hole.
heh.
Since you obviously have no idea what communism is or how it pertains to the OSS community, I have pasted the definition below:
communism (taken from dictionary.com)
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
I rest my case.
PS. I admit I did pull those numbers out of my ass...... but it was to prove a point (that you seemed to have missed).
I expect to see a response like... "communism really isn't that bad...just not implemented correctly"
figures the gnu nazis would cover up the truth by modding me down...
Talk about missing the point! I bet you're an MBA aren't you? What part of "we don't need ANY proprietary software" did you not understand. That's right. No proprietary software. As in: Proprietary software is going the way of the dinosaur. Deal with it
what is the difference between proprietary software and Open source software to a company? Nothing.
here are some figures:
prop software: $1000 + $2000 per year. support
OSS: $3000 per year
it's all the same to a company. Just money. The only people that care are the zealous programmers that would like to bring the ideals of a communist society, to the technology world.
The point is, smart programmers don't NEED the corporate "we" that you refer to a dozen times in your argument. That is the beauty of Open Source. You don't have to do everything yourself. Structure falls into place naturally. All you have to do is take what exists and extend it as people needs dictate. For that, those people WILL pay you if you offer a better total solution than proprietary competitors
Besides a stallman based software world, why should it matter what a company chooses. (isn't that called FREEDOM?). I know you probably don't understand this, but JUST BECAUSE A PIECE OF SOFTWARE IS OPEN SOURCED DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER!
You are limiting your viewpoint to assume that software is a product when in fact, it can also be a service. Open Source doesn't make money on licenses. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make money. If someone pays you to write Open Source software that they need (say you are a consultant, perhaps), then it doesn't matter if the software itself is free because it wouldn't exist without them paying you to create it. Additionally, you can provide them with support contracts, training, etc. Software itself is a small component of a total solution that clients need.
first of all, since you can get the source of all open source software for free, eventually companies won't need to hire you as a programmer.
second, if I wanted to do tech. support, I wouldn't be a programmer.
slashdot doesn't seem to have a problem with this.
there is no difference in what the Mpaa/Riaa are doing to morpheus/kazaa.
One license restriction over another.
Seems to me that Nusphere is trying to greedily free-ride off the hard work of Open Source developers. Simply put: Nusphere doesn't get it. They are one of many who still mistakenly believe that proprietary software is the only way to make money. As such, I personally hope they get ripped to shreds in court and all their proprietary modifications get forcefully released to be freely assimilated into the GPL codebase as MySQL developers see fit.
you don't get it. Open source doesn't make money.
The problem is this: if you can get the source for free, why pay for it? (not the mention the fact that you can download one copy and redistribute it to everyone you know..legally).
show me an example of "open source" that makes money. (excluding all the distro companies).
How about loki?
oh wait.......
I suggest you read the GPL FAQ [gnu.org] before you spoout any more bollocks.
Why?
the article today (and countless others' that have violated the gnu), proves his point pretty nicely if you ask me.
FSF's policy with respect to GPL violations is to secure compliance, not damages. When a party has violated GPL, and the violation is called to our attention (which happens on the average some dozens of times each year), we inform the party in violation of its responsibilities, and advise it on the steps necessary to come into compliance. It is our practice that once a party has taken steps to comply, and has entered into confidence-building measures to ensure that future non-compliance will be avoided wherever possible, and rapidly discovered and remedied where inadvertently reproduced, distribution rights under GPL 4 are restored on a cooperative non-judicial basis. In this fashion, I have secured compliance with the license in dozens of cases over the past decade, and have never had to resort to judicial measures of mandatory enforcement. Without the leverage provided by 4, however, parties would resort to repetitive partial compliance, ``capable of repetition but evading review,'' in language the Supreme Court has applied to a different sort of situation, substantially if not overwhelmingly complicating the task of securing reliable compliance with the license
You call this more "free" than the copyright?
I sure as hell don't. It's just as bad as the RIAA going after copyright holders for sharing music.
If the GPL license was truly "Free", there would never be a court case, because you could do whatever you wanted with the source code. Unfortunatly, because of the vast restrictions instilled by our favorite chap richard Stallman, people are forced to give our their source code for free. (provided they have made an alteration to a Gnu'd work).
I am going to use the same argument that many have used in legitimizing music:
If someone is making money off of your sourcecode, why does it matter? It's not like your are losing money each time your code is used.
The only true "free" license is public domain.
Why should the GPL be any less credible than any other software license out there? If it fails, it seems that there would be an implication that other restrictive licenses should fail as well (read: anti-reverse engineering clauses and the like).
Then maybe we will actually see the enterprise edition of sourceforge, instead of having to buy it for an un-godly amount of money. I thought if a piece of software was released under the GPL, we got to D/L the source?
I guess the people of slashdot are closer to the corporations of america than I thought......
One might look to Microsoft and all their money for help implementing this but who are they to create standards?
well, they ARE the most popular OS in the world, with enough power to push any standard into regular use.
look at the html standards, for example. he who controls the browser, controls the standards.
How are we to convince people to switch to free software when we're charging them for it?
Because the "free" is in speech, not in beer. But unfortunatly too many people have associated OSS with the latter rather than the former.
But then again people who advocate BSD style licenses really want to get raped by big business, why else would they bend over and spread their anus crack in such a way?
It could have happened, even IF it was under the GPL. Look at sourceforge 3.0 enterprise edition, that the parent company of slashdot owns. You cannot download the source, and the price is "call for details". Kinda makes you wonder....
If they can force the free competition to be shut down, then they control the Warcraft III monopoly and save their revenue stream.
you're joking, right?
How the hell is warcraft 3 a monopoly?
This, my friends, is what's wrong with the software industry (and, to a certain extent, corporate America
and why is that? Because they are protecting their property.
just as "wrong" as this
shouldnt microsoft stop samba then, samba is a reverse-engineered microsoft property which allows user of non microsoft products to access m$ shares.
Why would they want to? If everyone is using the netbeui protocols, it just makes microsoft more of a de facto standard.
Blizzard, on the other hand, has no incentive to let people bypass their blizzard.net servers.
And what is wrong with that? You've just given some ligitimate reasons: it's just the 'copyrighted' files, music and movies that are the problem.
Show me a napsteresque service that DOESN'T have copyrighted material on its network.
When artists agree to file sharing, perhaps we'll see a real shift in the industry's exploitative business model.
Yeah, a monthly fee for music.
that doesn't mean I have some obligation to get paid. Why are these musicians any different?
Maybe your boss should tell you that after a day of work. WHY SHOULD YOU BE ANY DIFFERENT?
There are plenty of legitimate and legal uses of Napster-esque technology
REALLY?
what are they?
Every napste-esque application I have ever seen was either for sharing files, music, or movies.
The only way for the artists to stand a chance against such an inbred monster as the MPAA or any largeish record label is for them to stand together, not have a bunch of disparate lawsuits that only create trivial damage at best. They need a knock out punch by flexing their collective muscles.
And how are they gonna do that?
Get rid of the artists, and release their music solely on the internet? It would be "shared" within a few days of release, but then I guess there would be no legitimate use for filesharing. (who would we be fucking over, THE ARTISTS?).
What you are forgetting is the fact that no matter how cruel and shitty a recording studio is, they provide things a person on their own could never afford. Such as: Promotion and studio time.
No matter what form music is in, there will almost always be a need for a recording studio.
You can't censor the whole internet, and freedom is contagious
Welcome to the world of communism.
It's been tied up in court for almost two years and my friend has almost gone under because of this. They can afford to hold out until my friend settles for pennies on the dollar.
good luck. Walmart has vast experience in this field. They are the #1 entity sued in the united states.
I'll never understand why MS does not make the source code available under alicense that forbids distribution of that code or derived code in any binary form or in any form that will self compile..... This way the linux folks can see what they need ot make wine work, and no one except MS can sell the binary version of the software that 90+% of the people will use
I don't see why microsft just doesn't assimilate linux. they have the money, expertise, and man power, and because it's free, there would be no problems.